PC: Would Edward V/VI Have Had Problems Fathering Kids?

Some of Jacquetta of Luxemburg's male descendants had problems having issue - either entirely (like most of her sons) or of the right sex. There is the theory that Henry VIII's suffered from McLeod's that he inherited from the Wydeville matriarch and this was a medical explanation to cover most of Henry's eccentricities.

My first question is whether there is substantial enough proof that we can postulate Edward V or Richard of Shrewsbury might've suffered from a similar problem.

My second question concerns Edward VI. There's a raft of theories about why Henry VIII struggled to have kids. But would any of them (like the congenital syphilis Edward and Mary (possibly Fitzroy too) suffered from) have hindered the chances of Edward VI having kids with a fertile bride?
 
Some of Jacquetta of Luxemburg's male descendants had problems having issue - either entirely (like most of her sons) or of the right sex. There is the theory that Henry VIII's suffered from McLeod's that he inherited from the Wydeville matriarch and this was a medical explanation to cover most of Henry's eccentricities.

My first question is whether there is substantial enough proof that we can postulate Edward V or Richard of Shrewsbury might've suffered from a similar problem.

My second question concerns Edward VI. There's a raft of theories about why Henry VIII struggled to have kids. But would any of them (like the congenital syphilis Edward and Mary (possibly Fitzroy too) suffered from) have hindered the chances of Edward VI having kids with a fertile bride?


Is there any evidence that Henry VIII suffered from syphilis - congenital or otherwise?

Iirc, records of his medical treatments still survive, and make no mention of mercury, which was the standard treatment for syphilis in his day. Not to mention that he was the longest-lived King since Edward III, which is surprising if he had such a disease.
 

Vuu

Banned
Not sure if that's McLeod syndrome, but there is probably a disease that destroys most Y chromosome spermatozoids, that they had
 
Is there any evidence that Henry VIII suffered from syphilis - congenital or otherwise?

Iirc, records of his medical treatments still survive, and make no mention of mercury, which was the standard treatment for syphilis in his day. Not to mention that he was the longest-lived King since Edward III, which is surprising if he had such a disease.

ICR where I read it - or why Ned and Mary would've had it but not Liz (unless she wasn't Henry's kid). I'm just asking if Edward VI would've had similar problems to his dad in being able to have kids.

Not sure if that's McLeod syndrome, but there is probably a disease that destroys most Y chromosome spermatozoids, that they had

I'm not a medic so I'm gonna stick my neck out and say that the paper (which was uploaded to the board a few years ago, it was called Jacquetta's Curse or somesuch) wasn't very convincing. It suggested that either Katherine of Aragon had a short-termed pregnancy with Arthur or Mary wasn't Henry. BOTH of these things would've (to my mind) been shouted from the rooftops when Henry wanted an annulment (she WASN'T a virgin or she WAS unfaithful). Henry had no problem saying this about his later wives, yet he DIDN'T about his first. So the McLeod's theory is not watertight.

But it is sort of acknowledged that Henry MIGHT'VE had something wrong at a genetic level (whether it was simply incompatibility with his wife - Anne Boleyn's Rhesus theory - or something else IDK).

Liz Wydeville's eldest son didn't seem to have a problem when it came to kids, which makes me think Ned V and RoS would've been fine. But considering that the Tudor problem would've been Liz's grandkids (and Arthur was supposedly sickly while Henry struggled to have male heirs), I was wondering if Ned V's sons might've been saddled with a similar problem genetically: the struggle for sons or weak/unhealthy heirs who leave the nursery in a coffin.
 
Is there any evidence that Henry VIII suffered from syphilis - congenital or otherwise?
ICR where I read it - or something else IDK).

That Henry VIII had syphilis was a piece of widely accepted "unwritten" history for a very long time, with associated legends. In the 1966 musical Cabaret, there is a scene where some of the characters chat (rather awkwardly) about venereal diseases, including syphilis. One character remarks that Henry VIII got it from Cardinal Wolsey whispering in his ear. Cabaret was based on Christopher Isherwood's 1951 play I Am a Camera; I haven't read it but I guess this was almost certainly in there.

More recent scholarship notes that Henry lived to a fairly old age, and showed no signs of dementia. While he developed some skin problems, which were the basis of the story, the descriptions of them don't resemble syphilitic lesions.

And obviously neither Elizabeth or Mary had it. Fitzroy having it doesn't prove Henry had it; Fitzroy could easily get it on his own.
 
Last edited:
I am always a bit reluctant to ponitificate about this issue cos it is impossible to prove either way
Jacquetta Woodville had at best guess anything up to 14 children.

Of her sons - Anthony was married twice and had only one illegitimate child (his first wife had no children by her first husband so it may have been on her side), Lewis is thought to have been the eldest boy but died young, Lionel went into the church, John married a much older woman and was executed by Warwick, Richard and Edward never married which given their circumstances for most of their adult life is not surprising.

The Woodville's finances were precarious - the 1st Earl's estate was modest most of their day to day living came from what of her dower as Duchess of Bedford she'd managed to keep but it was life interest only and on her death reverted to the crown (they failed to convert most of her assets to enable them to pass to her children) this meant her sons had to marry well or not at all quite frankly - with the exception of Anthony Edward IV did very little for his wife's brothers.

Of her daughter's Elizabeth Woodville had 12 children (of which all but two lived to adulthood), Anne Woodville had four children that lived to adulthood, Jacquetta Woodville had one surviving child, Eleanor or Joan married but had no recorded issue, Margaret had four children, Mary had one (but might have died in childbirth), Catherine had four.

Given that even with high ranking aristocrats stillbirths and miscarriages were not usually recorded - its hard to read much in any of the above - but the majority of Jacquetta's daughter's proved fertile - Catherine had four children in around five years for example.

As to her grandchildren - well the York girls seem to have had issues but given the rate of infant mortality and the fact the higher you were socially the more medical intervention you got and that was often the real cause of the mother or the child's death - it is perhaps not surprising.

I have read that the problems of infant and maternal death actually increased during the 16th Century so perhaps the Tudor's were just unlucky in their medical care rather than cursed with any hereditary problem.

In terms of the Tudor's Margaret and Mary had little problem conceiving - Margaret had eight recorded children by three husbands of which only two survived to adulthood (both of which had issue though Margaret Lennox suffered a number of miscarriages), Mary Tudor had four of which two survived (and both her daughter's had issue) - Henry VIII his six wives and one known mistress had at least 12 pregnancies leading to four surviving children (though both his sons died in their teens)
 
Last edited:
So, if I understand the above posts correctly, there should be NO reason (besides the reality of early infant death being an all too common occurence) why Edward V or Richard of Shrewsbury (or even Edward VI) couldn't father a raft of children like their father or grandfather?
 
In theory no. Concerning Henry VIII we must also take into account Catherine's years of misery that affected her health and the stress that Anne was under, as well as Henry's own health issues.
 
In theory no. Concerning Henry VIII we must also take into account Catherine's years of misery that affected her health and the stress that Anne was under, as well as Henry's own health issues.

Were any of Hal's health issues genetic? I think we've seen a debunking of the syphilis theory above.

Obesity isn't genetic (AFAIK) and before the 1536 jousting accident he seems to have been reasonably healthy. Same for Ned IV. He seems to have been "healthy" and most likely the doctors' care for the pneumonia he caught in 1483 (I assume it was pneumonia, the sources just say it was "a chill") did more harm than good. So he COULD'VE lived a few more years (assuming there were no worrisome diseases lurking in ambush).
 
About Henry VIII and genetic why the issues need to be from the side of Jaquetta/Elizabeth/Elizabeth?
Catherine of Valois or Margaret Beaufort can also be the source of that unless that issue is specifically linked to the chromosome x (but in that case neither Fitzroy or edward VI would have been affected at all) and are a much more likely sorce for it
 
I am always a bit reluctant to ponitificate about this issue cos it is impossible to prove either way
Jacquetta Woodville had at best guess anything up to 14 children.

Of her sons - Anthony was married twice and had only one illegitimate child (his first wife had no children by her first husband so it may have been on her side), Lewis is thought to have been the eldest boy but died young, Lionel went into the church, John married a much older woman and was executed by Warwick, Richard and Edward never married which given their circumstances for most of their adult life is not surprising.

The Woodville's finances were precarious - the 1st Earl's estate was modest most of their day to day living came from what of her dower as Duchess of Bedford she'd managed to keep but it was life interest only and on her death reverted to the crown (they failed to convert most of her assets to enable them to pass to her children) this meant her sons had to marry well or not at all quite frankly - with the exception of Anthony Edward IV did very little for his wife's brothers.

Of her daughter's Elizabeth Woodville had 12 children (of which all but two lived to adulthood), Anne Woodville had four children that lived to adulthood, Jacquetta Woodville had one surviving child, Eleanor or Joan married but had no recorded issue, Margaret had four children, Mary had one (but might have died in childbirth), Catherine had four.

Given that even with high ranking aristocrats stillbirths and miscarriages were not usually recorded - its hard to read much in any of the above - but the majority of Jacquetta's daughter's proved fertile - Catherine had four children in around five years for example.

As to her grandchildren - well the York girls seem to have had issues but given the rate of infant mortality and the fact the higher you were socially the more medical intervention you got and that was often the real cause of the mother or the child's death - it is perhaps not surprising.

I have read that the problems of infant and maternal death actually increased during the 16th Century so perhaps the Tudor's were just unlucky in their medical care rather than cursed with any hereditary problem.

In terms of the Tudor's Margaret and Mary had little problem conceiving - Margaret had eight recorded children by three husbands of which only two survived to adulthood (both of which had issue though Margaret Lennox suffered a number of miscarriages), Mary Tudor had four of which two survived (and both her daughter's had issue) - Henry VIII his six wives and one known mistress had at least 12 pregnancies leading to four surviving children (though both his sons died in their teens)
 
I agree. How many children did Edward IV's daughters have? I don't recall who they were married to. If there were a genetic problem, it should have showed up in their descendants also.
 
I agree. How many children did Edward IV's daughters have? I don't recall who they were married to. If there were a genetic problem, it should have showed up in their descendants also.

Near as I can figure, other than Liz you had...
  • Cecily had two kids by her first husband Viscount Welles who died young. Details are iffy regarding the issue of her marriage to Thomas Kyme but she may have had 2 surviving kids there.
  • Anne was married to Thomas Howard (later 3rd duke of Norfolk) and had one son who died at ~12 and possibly a few more who died young.
  • Catherine married William Courtenay and had a son who survived to adulthood (Henry, Marquess of Exeter, executed by Henry VIII), a second son who died as a child, and a daughter who died in her 20s.
    • Exeter, for his part, had only one surviving child- Edward, Earl of Devon.
  • And Bridget, who was a nun.
So Liz was probably the most successful of the sisters when it came to bearing children.
 
Top