Why couldn't Kathrine of Aragon or Anne boleyn, Give King Henry VIII of England, a living son?

Question

I know that Jane Seymour his 3rd queen was able to have Edward who later became King Edward IV. And Bessie Blaunt had Henry Fizroy. Was Henry VIII really being punished by God?

Answer 1

back in that era no one was really healtyhy and doctors werent so great imean they didnt take baths and they thought salt would make you have baby boys, plus Katherine might have had something in her Ovaries like her daughter Anne did give her a girl, and after he had little Edward the rest of his wives were more like nurses than wives.

Answer 2

He didn't have any lead in his pencil

Answer 3

maybe if Henry would have kept his sticky wick around long enough he may have produced more heirs, but he was so busy with his dalliences chances are he wore himself down to the point he couldn't, shall we say, be up to the task---:)

Answer 4

like everyone said, Henry's sperm carried the X or Y to make boys or girls.  'Course they didn't realize that at the time, so it was easy for people to hang the blame on the women. (esp after he had the illegitimate son, Henry Fitzroy--"see, *I*can have sons, but not with *you*"--though may I point out that his other probable illegitimate child was another girl, born to Mary Boleyn)

There has been a suggestion of Henry's health--he could have contracted syphilis--and also the stress factor on the women.  Both Catherine & Anne had miscarriages when his demands were high, and all eyes were watching their waistlines.  I think even Jane had one before Edward VI was born.  We now know what stress & tension can do, and that would surely be a highly tense & nervous situation for these women.

I doubt there was real punishment involved either, but the times (& Henry) would have seen it that way.  Besides, Elizabeth (Anne's daughter) was one of England's best monarchs, so it smacks more of national reward if you want to look at it that way.

Answer 5

probably more like bad genes.  I doubt if his little swimmers were up to the task.

Answer 6

No only by bad genes.

Answer 7

because of himself not the wives

he likley made more femal sperm (carring and x gene) then male (that carry the y)

many familys are like this today a man will have 3 or four daughters before having a son, or vise versa.

i have heard of a family that had 20 children (this was about maybe 5 years ago) the first 19 were boys and number 20 was a girl.

it had nothing to do with the woman...but in that day women were blamed for that..(and everything else), because it obviously couldn't be the fault of a man.

but now we know about how gentics work and that it is the male who "decides" the gender, since a woman can only donate an x to the eqation and a man can give either a x or a y. so if dad gives an x then you have xx = girl if he gives a y then you get xy = boy.

so henry the 8th was a girl machine, not his wives.

Answer 8

It's just part of the way things went...really high infant mortality, terrible medical care, even worse prenatal care.

Think about it, the minute a woman began to show, she "took to her bed" for something like 6 months.  That just can't be good.

And Anne Bolyene was hardly married to him long enough to try to give him another child, before he realized she was never going to give up her original lover, and had her head lopped off for treason.

There is one other issue:  Inbreeding.  The more cousins keep marrying each other, the less reproductive they are.

Answer 9

It's actually Henry's fault and I believe Catherine (was Henry's former sister-in-law, then wife when his brother died) was a bit older when she conceived Mary.

Answer 10

The genes for boys comes from the father not the mother. so really Henry couldnt give himself a son.

Answer 11

The men are the ones that determine the s*x. Don't blame Catherine or Anne. Maybe you should be asking the question to Henry. (But then again he never did anything wrong you know. It was always the wives. )

Answer 12

What everyone else said about sperm AND...

Let's not forget how inbred the royal families of Europe were at this time. It's possible that so many children were miscarried or died soon after birth because of genetic abnormalities.

I'm pretty sure there weren't any gods involved.

Answer 13

you do realize that the man is the one that determines the s*x of the child. while henry did have a boy with Jane, the boy was sick. anne boylen was prego with a boy at one time, but she lost the child due to stress. henry also had a b*****d child named henry fitzroy. he couldnt take the throne for obvious reasons.

Answer 14

The male determines the s*x of the baby not the mother.   Did you fail Genetics?

Answer 15

It's been theorised that both Katherine of Aragon and, particularly, Anne Boleyn may have been Rhesus Negative while Henry was Rhesus Positive, which may have explained one living child and many stillbirths or miscarriages.  Read this for more detail, and other ideas:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pageren...

The Tudors themselves were not noted for their fertility; Henry's father and mother, Henry VII and Margaret of York (Plantagenet), also suffered dead children.  Katherine of Aragon's family suffered from some mental problems.  It is also said that the stress that Anne Boleyn underwent may have been no small cause of her disasters in pregnancy and childbirth.  Jane Seymour was said to be small and slim-hipped, accounting for her lengthy labour and possibly the infection she suffered afterwards leading to her death from puerperal fever.  Mary I, Henry and Katherine's daughter, underwent possibly two imagined pregnancies; she had always been in imperfect health, but the pregnancies may have been phantom or due to her ovarian cancer.  Who knows if Elizabeth I would have been able to conceive?  I wonder if she did indeed have affairs but was unable to have children; and I have read of a hint that her rollicking games with her stepmother's husband, Thomas Seymour, may have led to an inability to bear children (only a suspicion!).

It's far too long to copy and paste here, but do read this tract (the first half or so!), which is hugely interesting.  It deals with the health of the dynasty and includes pregnancies and childbirth, as seen through a Holbein portrait:

http://www.holbeinartworks.org/efaqsseve...

Answer 16

Perhaps fate, bad luck, unknown health problems...............we will never know the answer.  But I don't believe Henry was being "punished".  

best of luck to you!

Answer 17

well if you want to get technical, it was Henry's own fault they didnt give him a son. Women chromosones are XX therefore they can only ever contribute a X chromosone, it is the male who decides the s*x as he is XY and can therefore contribute either a X or a Y chromosone......if he contributes a X....they'll have a girl.......if he contributes a Y......they'll have boy

Answer 18

Maybe it's the blue genes.

Answer 19

its not the queens fault for not being able to produce a son for kking henry. In reality, its actually king henry's fault. His sperm is what determines the s*x of the baby.