Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Henry VIII May Have Suffered Traumatic Brain Injuries
Archaeology ^ | Friday, March 04, 2016

Posted on 03/06/2016 5:54:55 PM PST by SunkenCiv

Historians have suggested that Henry VIII, who had been described as an even-tempered and intelligent young man, may have suffered traumatic brain injuries that caused lasting health and behavioral problems. Muhammad Qaiser Ikram and Fazle Hakim Saijad of Yale University analyzed Henry's letters and other historical sources for information on his medical history and events that could explain his ailments. While in his 30s, Henry was injured during a jousting tournament when a lance penetrated his visor, and he received another blow to the head while attempting to pole-vault over a brook. In 1536, a horse fell on him during jousting match and the king was unconscious for two hours. "Historians agree his behavior changed after 1536," behavioral neurologist Arash Salardini said in a press release. Salardini and his team argue that traumatic brain injury offers a better explanation for Henry’s memory problems, explosive anger, inability to control impulses, headaches, insomnia, and perhaps even impotence than other ailments that have been suggested, such as syphilis, diabetes, and Cushing Syndrome.

(Excerpt) Read more at archaeology.org ...


TOPICS: Health/Medicine; History
KEYWORDS: closedheadinjury; fordor; godsgravesglyphs; henryviii; syphyllis; tudor
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-74 next last
To: jimmyray

Yeah. King James published it. The first of the Stewarts.

I’m thinking aphasia, maybe a stroke but probably from blows to the head


41 posted on 03/06/2016 9:17:09 PM PST by tumblindice (America's founding fathers: all armed conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Guenevere

James was raised by Presbyterian guardians, to his mother’s consternation.
But myself having married the daughter of a Presbyterian minister, I can understand why he might not have been too keen on the rigidity of the denomination.
My upbringing was just short of services with parishioners tossing snakes back-and-forth.


42 posted on 03/06/2016 9:24:50 PM PST by tumblindice (America's founding fathers: all armed conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: mabelkitty
Believe it or not, but the King James Bible was printed under the auspices of .... drum roll .... King James I (James VI of Scotland). Henry considered himself a better Catholic than the Pope. It was his son Edward and daughter Elizabeth who moved England into the Protestant corner and E's successor James of Scotland who formalized things with a fully approved English translation of the Bible.
43 posted on 03/06/2016 9:25:15 PM PST by katana (Just my opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: katana

Yeah, he was always sore that Francois was awarded the title ‘Defender of the Faith’ by the Pope.


44 posted on 03/06/2016 9:27:39 PM PST by tumblindice (America's founding fathers: all armed conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: tumblindice

Francis. Whatever. The Frog king.


45 posted on 03/06/2016 9:29:28 PM PST by tumblindice (America's founding fathers: all armed conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: tumblindice
A title ironically that Henry held for awhile after writing and publishing his own Defense of the Seven Sacraments, an energetic condemnation of Luther. Henry was never really a Protestant. A scheming and greedy megalomaniac who wanted the monastic lands and riches in his pocket? Yes. Protestant in the manner of Luther, Calvin, or even his weakling son Edward and occasionally treated as a bastard daughter Elizabeth? No.
46 posted on 03/06/2016 9:40:52 PM PST by katana (Just my opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv; LS

Actually it’s quite contested that Henry VIII died of the Great Pox

If you have definitive proof I’d like to see it

All the murder and mayhem was a product of the court primarily all the intrigue over the years starting with Wolsley and T Cromwell on to the Boelyns and Seymours and of course thru his entire reign The Duke of Norfolk who barely survived him literally by Henry dying while his order for Norfolks head who languished in the Tower was never carried out

Henry literally divorced four women thru awkward annulments including two executions to keep striving for a male heir because it was the times

He discounted Cleves from jump street and killed Howard for being guilty of being unfaithful.....

Seymour is only true love died

Parr outlived him and his physical capability to produce an heir with her being late 30s and he weakened was low

Aragon he stayed with a long damn time to try for a legal divorce

These folks took the religious authority damn serious

Could he have had syphillis....sure but it is not a forgone conclusion

It is a matter of contention


47 posted on 03/06/2016 10:00:01 PM PST by wardaddy (Ted Cruz endorser of Rubio is off my Christmas list......both beloved by donor class unlike Trump)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: AnotherUnixGeek
By most accounts, Henry had already begun his pursuit of Jane Seymour while he was married to Anne Boleyn. He became engaged to Jane Seymour one day after he beheaded Anne Boleyn and married her 10 days afterward.

That doesn't sound like a man for whom Anne Boleyn was the love of his life.

Why not? He was a brutal, calculating man. He decided what he had to do, started doing it, and finished by killing her. Just because he planned it and then killed her didn't mean he didn't love her. Henry was a king, creating a new church, fighting the Catholic Church for the whole world. He obviously believed his destiny was given to him by God, and though it brought him grief, he carried it out - including getting a new wife ready to go, to try to emotionally distance himself from Anne before he had her executed.

48 posted on 03/06/2016 10:01:45 PM PST by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: katana

I seem to recall that Pope Peter O’Toole gave Francis the title after Henry killed an English cardinal and Tom More for refusing to sign on with the ‘Henry is Head of the Church’ drive.
Then Francis was surprised in Rome, encouraged to wage war on England.

It must give the Catholic church some satisfaction that the protest-ants came to be, or sprang from Henry’s overheated loins/libido. And desire for heirs.
I never understood why Rome never came to the conclusion, “You know what? We think he means it.”
The pope at the time being a ‘guest’ of Catherine’s uncle Charles prolly had a lot to do with it.


49 posted on 03/06/2016 10:02:12 PM PST by tumblindice (America's founding fathers: all armed conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: tumblindice

Catherine’s nephew Charles V.


50 posted on 03/06/2016 10:04:10 PM PST by tumblindice (America's founding fathers: all armed conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: tumblindice

I think you have just won the History According to People Who Get All Their Information From Movies contest. Funny thing, but there were at least five English kings named Henry (and quite a few who weren’t) between number II (the Peter O’Toole one who accidently ordered Richard Burton murdered in Canterbury Cathedral) and number VIII, the one who decided that A Man for All Seasons needed to be around ten inches shorter.


51 posted on 03/06/2016 10:15:53 PM PST by katana (Just my opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: katana

Let me see how many guy kings’ names I can remember. (At my familiy Christmas, you say,”Bob” and five guys turn around.)
OK.
George. Edward. of course Henry. Stephen. Richard. Charles. William. Harold. Axelrod(?). James. Alfred. Spanky. Brewster. I give up. Who’d I miss?


52 posted on 03/06/2016 10:34:48 PM PST by tumblindice (America's founding fathers: all armed conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: AnotherUnixGeek
He became engaged to Jane Seymour one day after he beheaded Anne Boleyn and married her 10 days afterward.

Rules!

oh wait..

53 posted on 03/06/2016 10:38:35 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: katana

As a PS, I always wondered why Helen Mirren’s Queen E.had a cool Duke of Anjou, while Kate Blanchette’s Queen E.got a cross dressing turkey.
Unless she was really being pressured to find a hubbie and they were different dukes, this would probably be a good example of how TV can jam a stick in your spokes, hmmmm?


54 posted on 03/06/2016 10:41:47 PM PST by tumblindice (America's founding fathers: all armed conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: tumblindice

John. Big bad John.


55 posted on 03/06/2016 10:54:36 PM PST by tumblindice (America's founding fathers: all armed conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Talisker
Why not? He was a brutal, calculating man. He decided what he had to do, started doing it, and finished by killing her. Just because he planned it and then killed her didn't mean he didn't love her. Henry was a king, creating a new church, fighting the Catholic Church for the whole world. He obviously believed his destiny was given to him by God, and though it brought him grief, he carried it out - including getting a new wife ready to go, to try to emotionally distance himself from Anne before he had her executed.

I think if any woman could claim to be the love of Henry's life, it might have been his first wife Catherine, who was originally wed to his elder brother Arthur and whom he was married to for 20 years - most of them happy, by all accounts. It was only when Catherine passed her child-bearing years without providing him with a son that Henry turned his back on her. Or Jane Seymour - the only one of his wives to provide him with the son he so desperately wanted.
56 posted on 03/06/2016 11:01:48 PM PST by AnotherUnixGeek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: tumblindice

I guess I’ll just talk to myself then.


57 posted on 03/06/2016 11:17:42 PM PST by tumblindice (America's founding fathers: all armed conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: AnotherUnixGeek
I think if any woman could claim to be the love of Henry's life, it might have been his first wife Catherine, who was originally wed to his elder brother Arthur and whom he was married to for 20 years - most of them happy, by all accounts. It was only when Catherine passed her child-bearing years without providing him with a son that Henry turned his back on her. Or Jane Seymour - the only one of his wives to provide him with the son he so desperately wanted.

Being Spanish, Catherine was merely a political marriage, which is why she was passed from brother to brother. And though Jane provided him with a son, that really doesn't indicate love, and in any event, Edward was sickly and of course died young, though after Henry of course. But there was passion with Anne, and fun times for seven years before he married her, so he pursued her long past when he had to as king. IMO, therefore, Anne was the one for him. YMMV, of course, since people have argued about all of this for 500 years.

58 posted on 03/06/2016 11:32:04 PM PST by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

Many believe he loved Jane Seymour above all. She was the only one who gave him a male heir, the only one to receive a queen’s funeral. He chose to be buried alongside her. But he was not married to her long enough to tire of her, as he obviously tired of several others.

It’s indisputable that he had an intense love for Ann Boleyn, at least during their courtship and their early years of marriage. He led the country to turmoil in his quest to marry her.


59 posted on 03/07/2016 4:15:22 AM PST by randita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: tumblindice
Same Duke, different screen writer and director. The accurate part was the pressure she was under to find a husband and her reluctance and clever evasion. The woman was better educated and more intelligent than 99% of the men in her time so submitting to man, like the one who chopped her mother's head off and occasionally disowned her as a bastard, was not exactly in her comfort zone.

Historical films usually have grains of truth but the actual amount varies. For example, in Brave tHeart the first battle is referred to in history as "Sterling Bridge". Why? Because there was a bridge involved that was key to Wallace and the Scots winning. But it was much more dramatic for Mel to ride out and "pick a fight" with the English fops and invent the pike as a defense against armored cavalry. Great movie with little bits here and there of accuracy, but not history. And on English kingly names, the Norman, Scottish, and Hanoverian German ones are pretty easy. Henry, James, Charles, and George cover most of them. Real lack of imagination there. But when you start digging into the Saxons and Danes who preceded them it can get interesting.

60 posted on 03/07/2016 5:46:17 AM PST by katana (Just my opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-74 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson