Did Henry VIII have syphilis?
That’s the question I’m exploring today! Spoilers: It’s a myth, and a persistent one.
Join me as I explore the origins of this misconception and the real story behind Henry’s health issues…
Transcript:
Today, I’m challenging an idea that I see on a weekly basis on social media, the idea that Henry VIII had syphilis.
Did Henry VIII have syphilis?
The short answer is no, but today I’m going to be explaining just how long ago that was debunked and why.
But first, I want to give you a little bit of news! On 28th July I’m going to be going live on YouTube for my channel members. It’s going to be at 10pm UK time / 5 pm New York time, and it will be an hour long chat over coffee or wine, or your favourite beverage, about King Henry VIII. It will be wonderful to share our views on this iconic historical figure and just talk Tudor.
I’m going to be doing these once a month for my channel members as a thank you to them for supporting me in my work. A huge thank you to them. If you’re not a member and are interested in joining, it’s just $2.99 per month and you can join by clicking on the join button on my channel homepage or by going to “membership”. Easy peasy, and thank you for considering it.
Let’s get back to syphilis! Ha!
Syphilis is, of course, a sexually transmitted infection which has four main stages. In the first stage, the patient suffers from 1 or 2 genital ulcers of between 1 to 2cm, which tend to be painless. In the second stage, a rash occurs, usually on the palms and the soles of the feet, and sores may appear in the mouth as well as the sexual organs. The third stage is known as latent syphilis because there are little or no symptoms, and then in the fourth stage, tertiary syphilis, gummas, or soft, non-cancerous growths appear, and the patient can start to suffer with heart problems and neurological problems.
Today, it is treated by antibiotics, but, of course, there were no antibiotics in the 16th century, so mercury was used, both orally and applied to the ulcers.
The idea that King Henry VIII, that Tudor king who ruled from 1509 to 1547 and had six wives, was popularised in the 19th century, the Victorian era, and even though it was debunked by Frederick Chamberlin in his 1931 work “The Private Life of Henry VIII”, and by lots of historians since, it’s still doing the rounds.
Why?
I guess because people see Henry VIII as promiscuous. There’s this popular idea that he had lots of mistresses, when actually he didn’t have that many – Mary Boleyn and Elizabeth Blount are the only definite sexual conquests outside of his marriage. There are some other names linked to him, but there’s no hard evidence, oops, that sounds dodgy. Henry VIII just doesn’t seem to have been the sort to take mistresses regularly, so he actually wasn’t that promiscuous.
And, as Chamberlin notes, the idea is also based on Henry’s leg ulcers and the fact that Catherine of Aragon lost so many babies. Chamberlin acknowledges that Henry VIII suffered with leg ulcers but the medical experts he consulted believe that these were more likely to have been varicose ulcers. Sir D’Arcy Power, a consulting surgeon at St Bartholomew’s Hospital believed that the king had varicose veins, and that when he injured his leg jousting, it broke the skin and resulted in an ulcer which could be painful when the nerve ending was exposed. After some time, there’d be discharge from it and inflammation could also cause feverish attacks. Power argues that a syphilitic ulcer is very different, that it could begin with a slight injury but then would tend to spontaneously cure, whether or not it was treated, rather than get worse. He also noted that syphilis affected the brain and spinal cord, but there’s no evidence that Henry VIII suffered with any paralysis or major vision problems. Power also points out that syphilitic ulcers were known to Tudor surgeons and so they would have treated him with mercury, yet, as we know from his medical expenses, the king was not given mercury.
Henry VIII was a bit of a hypochondriac really, and there’s no way he wouldn’t have had the standard treatment for syphilis of mercury if he’d had any concern that he had it.
Power concludes that Henry VIII suffered with varicose ulceration which became chronic and ended as a callous ulcer. That makes sense to me.
Obviously, Power was a surgeon in the 1900s, but I looked up varicose and callous ulcers. Varicose or venous leg ulcers are chronic sores that tend to develop on the inside of the leg between the knee and ankle. They can be painful, itchy and swell. The skin around the ulcer can become discoloured and hard, and the ulcer can also produce a foul-smelling discharge – which fits with Henry VIII’s ulcer. The UK’s NHS website states that “Venous leg ulcers can develop after a minor injury, if persistently high pressure in the veins of the legs has weakened the skin.” You’re more at risk of suffering with one if you’ve had deep vein thrombosis or your mobility has been affected by obesity, an injury, paralysis or osteoarthritis. You’re also more at risk if you suffer with varicose veins. Now, Henry VIII may have suffered with varicose veins – think of those tight garters he’s depicted in in portraits. He also put on weight after stopping jousting and became less mobile over time, ending up being carried around in a special chair.
A callous ulcer is a chronic ulcer, one that just doesn’t heal.
As for Catherine of Aragon’s losses, there’s only evidence of six pregnancies and Mary lived until she was 42 and Henry, Duke of Cornwall, died when he was 52 days old. There were four problematic pregnancies, but there’s no evidence that Catherine had syphilis, no mention of her having any symptoms, and no evidence that Mary or Cornwall showed any symptoms of congenital syphilis. Elizabeth Blount had a healthy baby boy fathered by the king, Anne Boleyn’s daughter Elizabeth was healthy, and Jane Seymour’s son, Edward, was fine as a child. They didn’t have skeletal deformities, learning disabilities, hydrocephalus, seizures, for example, and again, there’s no mention of their mothers displaying any symptoms of syphilis. If Henry VIII had syphilis then surely he would have passed it on to his wives, who then would have passed it on to their babies.
There’s also no mention of the king having rashes, or ulcers or growths anywhere else on his body. His health problems just don’t fit with syphilis.
Another theory regarding the king’s leg ulcers is that he had osteomyelitis. Kyra Kramer, author of “Blood Will Tell: A Medical Explanation of the Tyranny of Henry VIII” believes that his ulcers fit more with a diagnosis of osteomyelitis “in both duration and placement”.
Osteomyelitis is a painful bone infection whose symptoms can include swelling, warmth in the area, redness of the skin in that area, a high temperature, and a limp. A build up of pus can develop in the bone. Apparently, you’re more at risk of getting it if you have diabetes, break a bone, or suffer with a wound. Perhaps when Henry VIII injured his leg, bacteria entered the wound and led to osteomyelitis, it’s hard to say.
Varicose ulcers and osteomyelitis definitely fit better than syphilis, but I think the Victorians wanted to blacken Henry VIII. His was a story of tyranny and promiscuity, and perhaps syphilis excused some of his later behaviour in their view. But I haven’t heard one modern historian give any credence to it. IT IS A MYTH, it really needs to stop being spread on social media now, doesn’t it?
FYI, Frederick Chamberlin consulted many medical experts for his book on Henry VIII is the early 20th century and shares all of their opinions. It’s a very interesting read and you can read it free online on archive.org – https://archive.org/details/dli.ministry.05394/page/n5/mode/2up
