In 1509, England was on the verge of a golden era.  A beautiful, pious and learned 17-year-old prince had just ascended the throne.  It was going to be an age of unparalleled splendour.

Or so they thought.

By the time he went to meet his maker 38 years later, this prince of promise had beheaded two wives, executed the remnants of Plantagenet blood and torn apart the religious foundations of a nation.

What could possibly have gone so wrong?

According to countless mainstream media articles, the answer is simple.  Henry VIII sustained a traumatic brain injury following a fall from his horse in 1536.  Following that, his personality changed forever.  He became an erratic and paranoid tyrant.  The likes of Anne Boleyn and Thomas Cromwell paid the price.

But there’s a number of problems with this theory.  Here is just four of them.

1. Henry was probably not hurt in the fall from his horse

It’s often quoted as a fact that Henry was out cold for two hours following the fall from his horse.  But this information comes from a man not living in England.  Dr Ortiz, the source who claimed that Henry was without speech for two hours, resided in Rome and seems to have picked up the gossip third hand from a French ambassador.  As Alison Weir points out, continental gossip would later get the facts of Anne Boleyn’s arrest spectacularly wrong.

A source based in England, however, records the event very differently.  Chapuy, the Imperial ambassador, based in Henry VIII’s court, writes that:

“On the eve of the Conversion of St. Paul, the King being mounted on a great horse to run at the lists, both fell so heavily that everyone thought it a miracle he was not killed, but he sustained no injury.”

The thrust of Chapuy’s account is confirmed by the English chronicler, Charles Wriothesley.  In these versions it appears as if both Henry and the horse took a dramatic tumble.  Despite the force with which they fell however, the King emerged unscathed.  He might not even have hit his head.

The matter gets complicated further.  On 29^th January – five days after Henry’s fall – Anne Boleyn miscarried a child.  In her distress, she blamed her uncle the duke of Norfolk. The Duke, Anne claimed, alarmed and distressed her when he reported the news of Henry’s accident.  But Chapuy reacted to this with disbelief.  The Duke of Norfolk had told her calmly.  And besides, there had been nothing to worry about.

Could Anne’s tragic miscarriage really have had anything to do with the incident?  Sadly, she had miscarried before.  By this stage, Anne knew how much she needed a son.  It is understandable that in her grief and fear, she cast the net around for someone else to blame.

By the time this story, accompanied by the news of Anne’s miscarriage, had weaved its way to the continent, Chinese Whispers had played their part.  The story had morphed into the dramatic version that is so often quoted on social media.

The historian must give credibility to Chapuy’s account.  He would have spoken directly to eyewitnesses.  Had Henry been out cold for two hours, or been incapable of speech, it beggars belief that the Imperial ambassador would not have reported such a dramatic occasion accurately back to his masters.  Had Henry’s life hung in the balance, the Imperial authorities would have wanted every detail.  His death in 1536 would almost certainly have triggered a war of succession between the supporters of his two daughters, the Lady Mary and Princess Elizabeth.  Given that Mary was the emperor’s first cousin, Charles V would have had a vested interest in the outcome of that skirmish.  He may well have chosen to intervene.

Had there been the possibility of Henry’s death, Chapuy would have been all over it like a rash.  He was not one to tone down sensational details.

2. There was no sudden change in Henry’s behaviour

After Henry’s fall, he certainly perpetrated some great travesties.  Anne Boleyn was executed.  Thomas Cromwell would follow a similar fate.  Even Henry’s aged-cousin, Margaret Pole would meet her end at the scaffold.

But are these tragedies so different to the ones that occurred prior to the supposed ‘brain injury’?  Elizabeth Barton, the Nun of Kent was executed in 1534.  Henry’s one-time friend Thomas More met his end in 1535 as did Bishop Fisher, the holy man who had been a friend and confidant to Henry’s grandmother, Margaret Beaufort.  Was his treatment of Cromwell so different to that of the other minister he had been so reliant on, Cardinal Wolsey?

Throughout the 1520s, we see a gradual progression in Henry’s behaviour.  The renaissance prince of earlier years had certainly gone by 1536.  But he had been fading away for years.  Henry’s transition to ‘tyrant’ is better understood by the frustration he felt at being denied what he really wanted – the woman he loved and the son he believed she could give him. 

It is also possible to detect the roots of a tyrannical personality in the very early years of Henry’s reign.  Let’s not forget the fate of his father’s advisors, Empson and Dudley, who were destined for death the moment Henry ascended.

3. The theory makes Henry an ‘Alice in Wonderland’ style monarch

Tudor monarchs were immensely powerful.  But they couldn’t just shout ‘off with her head’ and expect the axe to fall straight away.

Someone didn’t lose their life because an erratic and brain-damaged Henry exploded with rage at them.   For ‘justice’ to be delivered, due legal processes had to be followed.

As the trial of Anne Boleyn demonstrated, proceedings could be heavily rigged.  Torture may have been used to extract Smeaton’s confession and much of the evidence against her was clearly engineered.  There can be no pretence that the justice system was an independent, democratic institution.  But processes were in place and even the king had to follow them.  History had shown just how dangerous it could be for a King that chose to act outside the parameters of the body politic of the day.  Richard II and Edward II had lost their crowns by doing so.

When we link the tragedies of Henry’s reign to his personality alone, we risk misunderstanding the limits and parameters of Tudor kingship.

4. The argument risks ignoring the politics of Henry’s court

When we blame brutal executions on a brain injury, we fail to appreciate the power dynamics of Henry’s court.

Those that perished during or after 1536 did not die just because they lost Henry’s favour.  They died because they had enemies.

Henry’s court was factional.  Major power brokers on both sides, blessed with wits, influence and resources, were occasionally able to outmanoeuvre their enemies.  Anne’s miscarriages and behaviour made her vulnerable.  But it was Cromwell that went for her.  Cromwell, in turn, miscalculated with the Cleves marriage.  But it was the conservative faction that outmanoeuvred him.  When Katheryn Howard showed a lapse in judgement, it was the reformists that ensured the evidence was mounted.

That doesn’t mean that it wasn’t a big deal if you lost Henry’ favour and protection.  People who rode high in his esteem were untouchable.  But falling from his favour did not instantly put your life in jeopardy.  Let’s not forget how worried Henry was that he might not be able to escape the Cleves marriage.  He was so grateful to Anna for cooperating.  He couldn’t have just chopped her head off.  International politics aside, what did he possibly have on her?

The politics of Henry’s reign is rich.  It’s an intellectual joy to try and unpick and understand it.  But when we attribute the drama of his later years to an erratic, brain-damaged personality, we risk missing the substantial political issues that lurked beneath the surface.   

*

None of this means that Henry’s personality didn’t change as he got older.  It would be strange if it didn’t.  And of course, declining health undoubtedly played a part.  The wounds on his leg caused him great pain and he may have suffered from high blood pressure and type 2 diabetes. 

But we must move away from this notion that he changed drastically in 1536.  We have to stop looking for a brain injury that resulted from a blow to the head that might not even have happened.  Such a view does not stand up to scrutiny.  But more importantly than that, it diminishes our understanding of the true development of Henry’s character.  It distracts us from appreciating the politics of the Henrican court.  It might give us an easy and sensational answer; but it deprives us of the real adventure that delving into the politics of Henry’s reign can take us on.

• WordPress
• Facebook
• Twitter
• Instagram
• YouTube