tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2634682259702186282.post7698044229533871547..comments2024-01-19T09:22:35.992-08:00Comments on Romance Under the Moonlight: Historical Saturday - Henry VIII and Syphilis - Part 3Stephanie Burkhart http://www.blogger.com/profile/16952130018587727063noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2634682259702186282.post-73044047679849562982013-10-26T01:58:13.345-07:002013-10-26T01:58:13.345-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.kpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17695605853988923474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2634682259702186282.post-8243511824676208482012-12-16T18:55:21.705-08:002012-12-16T18:55:21.705-08:00Where to start... you have so many inaccuracies, a...Where to start... you have so many inaccuracies, and so many theories you concluding are facts, I don't know where to begin. <br />PLEASE stop obtaining your knowledge of history for WIKI and a ridiculous soap opera like 'The Tudors'. If you are using these as your sole sources of information, then you know nothing about Henry VIII.<br />1) There is absolutely no evidence that Henry had syphillis. This disease was well known and wide spread by the 16th century; if Henry had it, or his physicians suspected it, the fact would have been well documented. Francis I of France had syphillis, and everyone knew it. Mercury was the only known treatment for syphillis, and it's well documented that Francis went through this ordeal - it makes the hair and teeth fall out. Henry never suffered mercury treatments. <br />2) Seven months without becoming pregnant is not at all unusual. Do you understand that there are only 48-72 hours in any given menstrual cycle in which a woman can become pregnant? And women don't ovulate during every cycle. If Henry were having erectile dysfunction, that is much more in keeping with a disease like Type II diabetes, not syphillis! Diabetes also explains his other health problems much more readily than syphillis.<br />3) Henry and Anne of Cleves never consummated their marriage - that was the entire basis for their divorce! How in the world could you have overlooked that fact?<br />4)Compared to his contemporaries, Henry was not promiscuous. He had very few mistresses, and those were usually just while his wives were pregnant, as sex during pregnancy was considered dangerous.<br />epiphanyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09926995729411822156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2634682259702186282.post-34496656225947344222010-05-24T06:30:50.805-07:002010-05-24T06:30:50.805-07:00Ladybirdrobi,
I agree - we'll never know for s...Ladybirdrobi,<br />I agree - we'll never know for sure, but we will all draw conculsions based on what we've been been exposed to and our opinions. I think it's a fascinating "what if" history topic. I'm glad you did enjoy the post.<br /><br />Gil, thank you for your thoughts and I will make that update regarding puerperal fever. Your books sounds interesting. It's my understanding the Stewarts were haunted by syphilis so I want to look at them next.<br /><br />StephStephanie Burkhart https://www.blogger.com/profile/16952130018587727063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2634682259702186282.post-84377213356802401072010-05-23T12:38:26.187-07:002010-05-23T12:38:26.187-07:00Ms. Burkhart:
A nice little essay, although my un...Ms. Burkhart:<br /><br />A nice little essay, although my understanding of congenital syphilis suggests outcomes universally more dire than Mary's. But, of course, this is all in the realm of hisstoricxal speculation, but interesting nonetheless. <br /><br />For updates, you will probably want to change "perpetual fever" to "puerperal fever". <br /><br />And, FYI I will soon publish a history of syphilis including an assessment of the current national and international upticks in rates plus speculations about the possible 21st century trajectory of this STD. The book will be called "THE PROSTITUTE'S PUPIL: Sex and Syphilis in the 21st Century".<br /><br />Keep up your good work.<br /><br />Gil Honigfeld<br />honigfeld.gil@gmail.comUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01233676450515055588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2634682259702186282.post-82206748474952741932010-05-23T07:47:59.946-07:002010-05-23T07:47:59.946-07:00Whether the claims are true or false, will we ever...Whether the claims are true or false, will we ever truly know? We didn't live that time period and record keeping at that time was done on paper of some sort which can be damaged easily and ink fades with time. Therefore everything is left for us to have an opinion of what we read if available based on whatever knowledge and or education that we have.<br /><br />We are only human so errors are almost prevalent if you ask me my opinion.<br /><br />However, I enjoyed this post because it is the first in my history of reading romances and such that an STD was discussed.ladybirdrobihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18235233171125569719noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2634682259702186282.post-48117134521081836352010-05-23T07:04:15.150-07:002010-05-23T07:04:15.150-07:00I agree, Margaret. This is one of the reasons I lo...I agree, Margaret. This is one of the reasons I love history. Lynne, thank you so much for your thoughts and the other resources to examine. I look forward to it.<br /><br />Smiles<br />StephStephanie Burkhart https://www.blogger.com/profile/16952130018587727063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2634682259702186282.post-48406701199158104202010-05-23T02:47:12.277-07:002010-05-23T02:47:12.277-07:00Wow Ladies this is so interesting. Don't you j...Wow Ladies this is so interesting. Don't you just love history.<br /><br />Regards<br /><br />MargaretMargaret Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07123830410502520003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2634682259702186282.post-12667202813916426302010-05-22T17:09:35.251-07:002010-05-22T17:09:35.251-07:00Sorry, I wrote it too fast. Anne Boleyn was rhesus...Sorry, I wrote it too fast. Anne Boleyn was rhesus negative, in all likelihood.lynneconnollyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687025766573756077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2634682259702186282.post-21635417028097689882010-05-22T12:38:38.793-07:002010-05-22T12:38:38.793-07:00I really hate to be a killjoy, but Henry almost ce...I really hate to be a killjoy, but Henry almost certainly didn't have syphilis, either primary or congenital.<br />I feel bad, but in another life, I was a scholar of this period and while you make the most of disputed fact, there are some others that are plain wrong. <br /><br />1. Wikipedia isn't a suitable source for reference. It is frequently inaccurate, and doesn't rely on primary sources for its information.<br />2. You mean "puerperal" fever, not "perpetual."<br />3. Anne of Cleves, not Anne of Cleaves. <br />4. Henry almost certainly had sex with Katharine Parr, his last wife. His will, amended for her, mentions "heirs of his body" which he would beget on her. No, it wasn't a typical clause, it was put in specially.<br />5. Katharine Parr died in childbirth after she married Seymour. Her baby died in childhood. There are no primary sources to support your assumption that the child was free of congenital syphilis. Conversely, there is no evidence to the contrary, either. <br />6. Queen Jane was not kept in insanitary conditions - puerperal fever has nothing to do with that, but with an infection contracted at birth in a pre-antibiotic era. She was cherished and carefully looked after, and was brought in state to her son's christening, at her own insistence. All the evidence points to Henry cherishing Jane, not least the great Holbein fresco at Whitehall.<br />7. When you quote original (primary) sources, you should quote them. I couldn't find reference to the Anne of Cleves claim, for example.<br />8. Edward's symptoms at his death are also typical of arsenic poisoning, either accidental or deliberate. Or it might have been consumption, which was endemic at this time. Primary sources of details of his condition are rare.<br />9. There is no evidence that Henry VIII was promiscuous, especially when compared to his fellow monarch, Francis I of France. Henry had two known mistresses, Bessie Blount and Mary Boleyn, and six wives. Serial monogamy was more likely undertaken to ensure a successor, essential if England was to avoid another damaging civil war. <br />10. Henry most likely did not have syphilis, nor did his father. Recent research has established that, including a project to investigate the royal account books and inventories from his reign. And yes, if he'd purchased the only known (and not always successful) "cure" for the illness, that would have been there. <br />It is tempting to assume that Henry VII contracted syphilis when he was in Burgundy in 1471, but there is no evidence that he did so. <br />Here's a simple explanation of why scholars are fairly sure that Henry didn't have syphilis:<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?hl=en&v=J99nwRs08bU&gl=US<br />and this one:<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=me8yqOqAkuw&feature=related<br /><br />There are many more studies and research, most of them not on the net, or only referenced there, but easy enough to get hold of. It is more likely that he had late onset diabetes. Queen Katharine of Aragon came from a family with a history of difficult births and childhoods, and repeated cousin marriages. Anne Boleyn might have been rhesus positive, which would lead her to give birth to a healthy child and miscarry the rest. Jane Seymour died in childbirth, not unusual for the period. Henry may not have slept with Anne of Cleves. Katharine Howard probably had abortions before she met Henry, and she never became pregnant from any of her lovers. Katharine Parr married a very sick man, and after his death, died in childbirth. <br /><br />If you can get hold of the programs I referenced above, you might find them very interesting.lynneconnollyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687025766573756077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2634682259702186282.post-54489553977014796272010-05-22T11:31:24.792-07:002010-05-22T11:31:24.792-07:00LOL!! I agree!
Smiles
StephLOL!! I agree! <br />Smiles<br />StephStephanie Burkhart https://www.blogger.com/profile/16952130018587727063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2634682259702186282.post-52272006283449612582010-05-22T09:36:47.897-07:002010-05-22T09:36:47.897-07:00wow, i always thought he was a punk. would have su...wow, i always thought he was a punk. would have sucked to get his attention! =8-0Paulinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06673963438671468441noreply@blogger.com