take-me-not-my-otp:

Tbh I’m only really getting into like non-fiction Tudor books having loved Philippa Gregory’s books when I was a bit younger so any recommendations for ones you like I’d be super down for, that just was the only decent looking one in my bookshop!! How come you’re not a fan though? I’m curious!

That’s very true, I suppose it’s unfair to look at modern day pregnancies where normally it isn’t choices the couple have made that led to the miscarriage (potentially a gross generalisation, I’m really a newbie into this research stuff forgive me!) and brush aside the impact that the diet would’ve had on their pregnancies! I knew that Anne was normally described as petite or slim, but again hadn’t considered that as a factor.

I feel like historians seem very quick to try and find a scientific explanation for stuff like apparently some people think Elizabeth had AIS to explain her more masculine energetic traits, small breasts rather than them just people a result of her parents being who they were :’)

I guess it just always seemed odd to me that though child (and mother) mortality were a lot higher than nowadays so many of Henry and his wives’ pregnancies ended in a miscarriage or a very poorly baby, although again that could just a lack of knowledge my end

Issues with Borman: here, here, and here. 

Well, if we look at the ratio of stillbirths/miscarriages vs. pregnancies to full term, we actually have five (the New Year’s Prince of COA and Henry lived nearly two months): Prince Henry, Mary I, Henry Fitzroy, Elizabeth I, and Edward VI. We know COA had (nearly) five miscarriages/stillbirths (her last daughter in 1518 lived a few hours). So two of COA’s were actually results of infant mortality rather than…lack of fertility/issues with pregnancies? I’m not sure why the last lived a few hours and wasn’t strong enough to survive, a low birth weight would be my best guess. 

So five versus (nearly) seven miscarriage/stillbirths, if we are taking into account Anne Boleyn’s two miscarriages. And while Henry is the common factor, it’s important to remember that we’re talking about four women, that each pregnancy is unique, that each woman had a different health, weight, diet, age at the time of each pregnancy, as well as their own genetics as well. 

I’d say that’s not an average ratio, but not abysmally so…or, not as much as it’s made out to be, in such a way that it requires the explanation of a genetic abnormality on Henry’s part, although it is certainly possible. 

Comparatively, Elizabeth of York had three consecutive, healthy births that (nearly, in the case of Arthur) survived adulthood. Her fourth, Elizabeth, died at the age of three. Mary, her fifth, survived to adulthood as well. Edmund Tudor was a victim of infant mortality, dying at sixteen months of age…as was her last child, who died within a week of birth. Elizabeth Woodville did not suffer any miscarriages or stillbirths that I know of, but her daughter Margaret of York was a victim of infant mortality. Her son George died at the age of two. 

So– if we take away the children that died of infant mortality by COA, of which there are two, it’s actually five births versus five miscarriages and stillbirths (not by the same woman, but by Henry). That’s a 50% mortality rate, which wasn’t average but certainly wasn’t uncommon, either– Anne’s mother, Elizabeth Boleyn’s, was 3:5, as another example:

According to the writings of Thomas Boleyn, Elizabeth was pregnant many times in the first few years of their marriage. It is believed that she had 5 pregnancies, of which 3 of her children (Mary, George, and Anne) survived to adulthood.

Rates of infant mortality were more prevalent among the majority of England, as most women did not have the same access to healthcare and a nutritious and plentiful diet as noblewomen, nor the same opportunity to rest, but should still be considered when we look at the pregnancies of Henry’s wives and mistress:

alicehoffmans:

I’m not really a fan of Tracy Borman, honestly? But I’ve never read that book so I can’t judge it. 

Have talked more about this theory here.  I remain pretty skeptical of it. If we look at the pregnancy-to-full-term and miscarriage patterns of Bessie Blount, Anne Boleyn, and Jane Seymour alone (as in…their first children by Henry were to term) the theory makes sense. When we look at COA’s, however, it doesn’t:

[Mary] wasn’t Katherine of Aragon’s first child; Katherine’s previous four children all died in the womb or soon after birth. If Henry did carry the big K antigen, he likely passed it on to one of Katherine’s first four babies, and Katherine would have developed antibodies to it, devastating her later pregnancies. Mary never would have been born…. “Katherine of Aragon’s initial
miscarriages and perinatal deaths, followed by a
successful fifth pregnancy are not typical of Kell antigen
sensitivity.”

We also don’t know, in the case of Blount and Seymour, if they would’ve had pregnancies by Henry that ended in healthy births because their first children by Henry were also their last. 

I think the theory became popular because it doesn’t make sense if we look at fertility (or not really even fertility, as there were technically several pregnancies by him in his lifetime but…births to full-term, rather) as a genetic…sort of inheritance? Elizabeth of York and Henry VII had several children, so why would Henry VIII not? Elizabeth Woodville and Edward IV did the same. Ferdinand and Isabella also did, Elizabeth and Thomas Boleyn had three children that survived to adulthood, etc. So, Henry VIII must have simply been unlucky enough to have the Kell positive blood type. 

The Kell theory also links into McLeod’s to explain his behavior and mental state later in life, but proves inconsistent in signs of McLeod’s:

However, although Henry displayed significant behavioural
change, he was not reported to have a neurological
movement disorder such as epilepsy, and his chronic leg
ulcer caused considerable pain, arguing against a sensory
neuropathy. 

I think the theory disregards other factors that could have led to miscarriages and stillbirths. The Tudor diet was not the best (although the diet of Queen Consorts was far more nurtitious and plentiful than the majority of England at the time); and as the water was not safe to drink alone, women drank watered-down ale or wine throughout the duration of their pregnancies. 

Given contemporary description, it is also possible that Anne Boleyn was underweight. Underweight women are generally at a greater risk of miscarriage. 

Average life expectancy in the early sixteenth century was barely thirty, a figure determined largely by heart-breaking levels of infant mortality: 25% of children died before their first birthday, and 50% before their tenth.

To sum up, I don’t really find the amount of healthy children by Henry to be as abnormal as most do when put into context…although they certainly would be if we’re comparing them to the standards and statistics of the U.K. today.