Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
3:27 am
April 9, 2011
Offline
Just wondering if it has other been hypothesized that perhaps Anne's miscarriages were a result of a sex-linked disease. I'll admit that as a newbie to the world of studying Herny's world all I know about Anne is the basics and what the entertainment world has taught me, so please forgive me if it has been raised in academic circles and knocked on the head. If that is thecase please excuse my ramblings.
Anyway, today on the treadmill I was wondering if her miscarriage/s may have been the body naturally aborting a child that had a genetic disease. There are genetic traits that if the mother's body recognises the abnormality can naturally abort the child. Now we know her one known miscarriage was apparently a boy, so it could be possible for the child to recieve the trait from Anne if she were a carrier. I've noticed that her parents had 2 boys that died have been assumed to have died young. Perhaps they had the disease and while they survived the pregnancy they were never going to survive life. This would make Elizabeth Boleyn a carrier, and possibly she gave the 'affected' X chromosome to Anne and the 'unaffected' X chromosome to Mary – explaining Mary's healthy boys. George obviously would have received the 'unaffected' X chromosome so didn't have the disease. It's a pity Anne's daughter did not have children, to help draw more conclusions.
I thought about the same situation being applied to Katherine of Aragon but she is more difficult to justify as she had both known male and female miscarriages.
So what do others think?
4:00 am
April 11, 2011
Offline
Great thesis Bill, I know Claire did an article on this on the AB files in 2009, but your comments add a new dimension to this. Perhaps somebody with a medical backround could elude further on this, but I cannot. Perhaps Anne was just a victim of the childbearing mortality rates of the age? I will be interested in others comments more knowledgeable than I.
Thanks for this one Bill, It can get us all thinking.
9:40 pm
January 9, 2010
Offline
This is a tough one. It has been speculated that Anne suffered a condition (that for the life of me I can't recall the name of) whereby a woman's first child is born healthy but later pregnancies end in a miscarriage or stillbirth. And Neil's right – there are articles that discuss Anne's pregnancies and possible diseases. But except for digging poor Anne up and conducting DNA tests we'll never know for sure.
But I've always felt the problem to be more Henry's rather than his wives; six different women and only three legitimate heirs, although we could discard Anne of Cleves in that scenario. But add Henry's acknowledged bastard instead (possibly one or two others) and the numbers still aren't great.
1:59 am
April 9, 2011
Offline
I'm personally of the belief that the deaths were the result of natural causes of living during the Tudor times. The miscarriages I feel were more from the stress the ladies were under from Henry in producing that much desired male heir. From a genetic point of view, I'm not sure what role Henry played. It's difficult because once he got his male heir it seems he didn't care about producing a backup male with his last 3 wives. Perhaps in the back of his mind he always knew he already had 2 back ups, so there was no need to pressure these ladies.
I'm not condoning for Anne's and Henry's bodies to be exhumed (or any other body for that instance) I believe in letting them rest. But it would be interesting to sit down with the family history of Henry Tudor and Anne Boleyn and construct pedigrees and perform Punnett Squares to see if a sex-linked disease may have been a possible cause. The biology teacher part of me, is fascinated by these things. Like 'blaming' Queen Victoria for the Russian Revoloution by showing a pedigree tree of her family and the appearance of haemophilia.
Anne's miscarriages could definitely be a result of something like Elizabeth's blood being different to the Anne's blood which as a result of labour caused Anne's body to produce antibodies for the bloodtype of Elizabeth which meant that if a baby had the same blood type as Elizabeth, Anne's body would view it as an enemy and destroy it. That is definitely a strong possibility.
Katherine of Aragon's case though is different and I don't think can be put down to any particular disease/syndrome caused by a previous birth. She had stillborns and miscarriages BEFORE and AFTER Mary. Katherine's babies deaths and miscarriages were definitely part of the coniditions of the Tudor Period and stress form Henry in my opinion.
9:05 am
October 31, 2010
Offline
Miscarriages are not rare events–even today I know soooo many women who have suffered at least one miscarriage if not multiple miscarriages. While it's entirely possible that genetic conditions could have caused the the miscarriages (and they are frequently caused by chromosomal abnormalities) we also know from research that male fetuses, in general, are “weaker” in utero than females because of the testosterone they are exposed to. The overwhelming majority of miscarriages are male–not female. Keep in mind that neither Anne nor Henry were spring chickens when they were married. Henry was 42 and Anne was somewhere between 26 and 31. That's not so old now, but considering that life expectancy back then was significantly shorter, it was. New research suggests that female fertility peaks between ages 22 and 26, and it was probably somewhat different back then based on people's diets, illnesses, etc. Since Anne was born with all the eggs she was ever going to have, if she was actively trying to get pregnant at 32/33 years old…that's a looooong time for mutations to accumulate in cellular time when you consider most cells don't live THAT long. So, certainly mutations and other abnormalities could have caused her miscarriages, though I don't think it was a genetic disorder passed on to her from her mother. On this one, I have to pull out Ocham's razor and say that the simplest and most direct answer is that she was simply a little past her prime and was experiencing many of the same problems that even modern women experience when trying to get pregnant. Not to mention all the pressure on her to have a male heir.
Now, look at Henry. New research on modern men shows that, even though men produce sperm throughout their lives, they too are more llikely to accumulate mutations. Apparently a study done in 2006 found that a modern woman under the age of 30 was 25% less likely to conceive if her partner was over 40, and a woman aged 35-37 was 50% less likely to conceive if her partner was over 40. In addition to that, it was reported in 2002 that a man and a woman of “advanced age” (a woman aged 35 and a man over 40!) were most like to experience a miscarriage. These two had so much stacked against them (and don't forget this was 500 years ago!) it's a miracle Anne conceived at all. And Henry should consider himself damn lucky to have had a son at all.
Can you imagine how much he would have spent on fertility treatments if he were around today!
"We mustn't let our passions destroy our dreams…"
8:38 pm
April 9, 2011
Offline
Don't get me wrong MegC, I too believe the simplest explanation is the best answer. I started this thread really to ask the question if a thought I had was ever raised and discussed in academic circles and published. Similar to the way Wenicke decided to publish the idea that the men executed with Anne were homosexuals, but then it was shot down pretty fast.
And I can only imagine the stress Katherine and Anne were under to produce a male heir. Unnecessary stress when the fact is that Henry is the one responsible for the sex of the child. So I personally believe stress was the main factor in all the miscarriages, I was merely thinking of alternative theories. Like Anne is a witch.
9:46 pm
November 18, 2010
Offline
How much did 16th Century people know about sex determination, anyway?
It's easy for us to say a man is XY and a woman XX, for the most part.
It's always bunnies.
9:50 pm
April 9, 2011
Offline
They knew none. Considering Gregor Mendel wasn't born until 1822 and then his work wasn't recognised until the 20th Century, I doubt anybody in the world at that time knew anything about the world of genetics. I should have added the words 'in hindsight' when I was discussing it was Herny's fault and not his eives fault for the lack of a boy.
9:59 pm
October 31, 2010
Offline
Well, they had to know something about genetics, even if they didn't know what it was called. Didn't Elizabeth even remark about her red hair being proof of her parentage? And people were certainly practicing selective breeding on animals and plants, so they were, at the very least, aware that traits are passed on from parent to offspring. Though they were certainly unaware of the whole XX/XY issue.
"We mustn't let our passions destroy our dreams…"
10:08 pm
April 9, 2011
Offline
I hang my head in shame. Thank you for correcting me MegC. Being a scientist I was only focused on the knowledge of genotypes. But you are correct, phenotypes had been discussed for years – especially when trying to prove a child belonged to a father. Plus all that selective breeding which at the time was based on physical characteristics as well.
With all this reading I'm doing of late, it sounds like the Tudor era was filled with red heads. I would have fitted right in.
10:51 pm
October 31, 2010
Offline
That's ok! Teaching the history of biology is one of my favorite parts of teaching biology. It's a shame my students don't like it as much as I do 🙁
Don't even get me started on Geologic Time 😀
"We mustn't let our passions destroy our dreams…"
12:00 am
April 9, 2011
Offline
That is true, you think the fact I teach Biology and am required to teach the history of it, I wouldn't have made such an obvious mistake. I would like to use the excuse that I continue to be amazed with Mendel's work to remember boring old selective breeding. From the sounds of it, at least my students appear to enjoy learning about Geologic Time. 🙂
9:33 am
October 31, 2010
Offline
Bill1978 said:
That is true, you think the fact I teach Biology and am required to teach the history of it, I wouldn't have made such an obvious mistake. I would like to use the excuse that I continue to be amazed with Mendel's work to remember boring old selective breeding. From the sounds of it, at least my students appear to enjoy learning about Geologic Time. 🙂
One of these days I'll probably be burned as a heretic for teaching evolution and geologic time. Every year it's like pulling teeth. I've had students who actually refused to do the work, whose parents have written notes asking that they're child be excused from certain assignments, etc. It's really sad because I like teaching evolution and geologic time, and students who are open-minded enough to listen actually learn a lot. What can I say? They're 15.
"We mustn't let our passions destroy our dreams…"
9:44 am
June 7, 2010
Offline
MegC said:
One of these days I'll probably be burned as a heretic for teaching evolution and geologic time. Every year it's like pulling teeth. I've had students who actually refused to do the work, whose parents have written notes asking that they're child be excused from certain assignments, etc. It's really sad because I like teaching evolution and geologic time, and students who are open-minded enough to listen actually learn a lot. What can I say? They're 15.
I just wanted to say WOW to your comment MegC. When I was in high school, we were taught evolution, geologic time, etc. and there were never parents who made their children leave class for these discussions. I feel parents are doing their children a disservice. It must be hard as a teacher when these situations happen.
As for the issue of genetics re: Anne's problems: I don't think we will ever know. I feel for any women who has suffered fertility problems. It must be heartbreaking. In Anne's time, before a knowledge of reproduction etc. was discovered, she must have felt helpless and bore the brunt of blame and criticism. Wait, that still happens today. I guess somethings never change?!
There were many other variables too: hygeine, personal health, etc. Remember, Anne was pushing 30 when she bore Elizabeth. In Tudor times, that was edging close to middle age.
"By daily proof you shall find me to be to you both loving and kind" Anne Boleyn
11:06 am
November 18, 2010
Offline
MegC said:
Bill1978 said:
That is true, you think the fact I teach Biology and am required to teach the history of it, I wouldn't have made such an obvious mistake. I would like to use the excuse that I continue to be amazed with Mendel's work to remember boring old selective breeding. From the sounds of it, at least my students appear to enjoy learning about Geologic Time. 🙂
One of these days I'll probably be burned as a heretic for teaching evolution and geologic time. Every year it's like pulling teeth. I've had students who actually refused to do the work, whose parents have written notes asking that they're child be excused from certain assignments, etc. It's really sad because I like teaching evolution and geologic time, and students who are open-minded enough to listen actually learn a lot. What can I say? They're 15.
That's sad on so many levels. How do they pass thier exams if they are missing large parts of the syllabus?
It's always bunnies.
11:56 am
November 18, 2010
Offline
DuchessofBrittany said:
As for the issue of genetics re: Anne's problems: I don't think we will ever know. I feel for any women who has suffered fertility problems. It must be heartbreaking. In Anne's time, before a knowledge of reproduction etc. was discovered, she must have felt helpless and bore the brunt of blame and criticism. Wait, that still happens today. I guess somethings never change?!
There were many other variables too: hygeine, personal health, etc. Remember, Anne was pushing 30 when she bore Elizabeth. In Tudor times, that was edging close to middle age.
I had DD1 when I was 34, DD2 at 37, 2 m\cs and DS at 41. I know women who started their families in their 20's and suffered m/cs and all of us suffered in our own way. We all lived in countries with excellent health care ( UK,USA, Can, Aus), we were all well nourished.
Nature is a b!tch sometimes.
Certainly I know in some cultures the push to have children is strong, especially boy children. And a wedding I was at recently, the bride was asked if she was getting pregnant soon since MoG deserved grand-children.
It's always bunnies.
1:25 pm
October 31, 2010
Offline
Anyanka said:
MegC said:
Bill1978 said:
That is true, you think the fact I teach Biology and am required to teach the history of it, I wouldn't have made such an obvious mistake. I would like to use the excuse that I continue to be amazed with Mendel's work to remember boring old selective breeding. From the sounds of it, at least my students appear to enjoy learning about Geologic Time. 🙂
One of these days I'll probably be burned as a heretic for teaching evolution and geologic time. Every year it's like pulling teeth. I've had students who actually refused to do the work, whose parents have written notes asking that they're child be excused from certain assignments, etc. It's really sad because I like teaching evolution and geologic time, and students who are open-minded enough to listen actually learn a lot. What can I say? They're 15.
That's sad on so many levels. How do they pass thier exams if they are missing large parts of the syllabus?
Evolution makes up a very tiny part of the final state exam, so even if they miss EVERY question on the test about evolution, they could still pass the exam (assuming they didn't miss too many of the remaining questions). Every state formulates their own state curriculums, and, for the most part, most states base their curriculums off of recommendations from the National Education Association and (in the case of science) the National Science Foundation and a few other sources. Some states place more emphasis on evolution than others. Many of the states here in the south (and other states with VERY strong evangelical roots) place less emphasis on evolution than other states. For example, there is nothing in the Tennessee state biology curriculum about teaching human evolution. I can teach it if I want to, but I'm on my own if a parent becomes upset and complains to the school. Quite honestly, I usually don't have as much time to cover evolution as thoroughly as I'd like.
Darwin is practically synonymous with Satan in some places around here, and evolution is just this side of heresy. Ministers slander Darwin from the pulpits (and how long has he been dead?) and spin inaccuracies about evolution when they clearly have no idea what they're talking about. Then, my students, who know absolutely nothing else about evolution or Darwin, hear me talk about it and all they know is what they've heard from, sadly, their churches. Makes me mad cause I don't walk into these churches and tell these ministers what to preach–and if I was going to do so, I'd at least make sure to have my facts straight.
And Tennessee was the home of the infamous Scopes Monkey Trial…While I haven't looked at the Georgia state Biology Curriculum, I don't imagine it will be much different from Tennessee's.
"We mustn't let our passions destroy our dreams…"
9:15 pm
January 9, 2010
Offline
Sorry if this is a bit off-topic, but reading your post Meg – wow. I can't believe people in this day and age still have a problem with Darwin and evolution! I find it quite bizarre, here in New Zealand that whole evolution thing is such a non-issue, in fact good luck in finding someone who doesn't believe in evolution! Biology is something I kinda wished I'd carried on with at school but I dropped all sciences in favour of history, art history and classical studies because of a time-table clash, so I have to say my knowledge on sciency stuff is limited.
But I did read somewhere that human beings compared to other animals are a bit rubbish at reproduction and the causes of a lot of infertility are still unknown. And that its only in the last hundred years or so that the world's population has really taken off due to better hygiene and dietary standards.
10:16 am
February 24, 2010
Offline
While I was growing up, Darwin's theory was a very important topic in Science class. And we all believed it. It would have been hard to find anyone 20 years ago who questioned this science. It's been downhill for a quite a while. It is only in the past 15-20 years or so that these subjects have become Satanic in parts of this country.
I have an in-law who freaked when my nephew and my husband were looking at a fossil and my husband was telling him how old the fossil was. She believes the world is 6,000 years old. It's getting ridiculous. There is a museum in the south, not sure whether it's Kentucky or Tennessee, that shows people walking with dinasours. How do you fight that? There are many politicians here who do not believe in evolution or in archeological finds which show the earth to be millions of years old. Global warming is abig joke to these people.
I don't know how we are going to have any scientists worth their salt coming out of this next generation. If they don't believe in the age of the earth, how could they possibly contribute to science.
Meg, come on up to New York. We still teach real science up here. My in-law is out of luck in this state.
8:39 pm
October 31, 2010
Offline
Sharon said:
While I was growing up, Darwin's theory was a very important topic in Science class. And we all believed it. It would have been hard to find anyone 20 years ago who questioned this science. It's been downhill for a quite a while. It is only in the past 15-20 years or so that these subjects have become Satanic in parts of this country.
I have an in-law who freaked when my nephew and my husband were looking at a fossil and my husband was telling him how old the fossil was. She believes the world is 6,000 years old. It's getting ridiculous. There is a museum in the south, not sure whether it's Kentucky or Tennessee, that shows people walking with dinasours. How do you fight that? There are many politicians here who do not believe in evolution or in archeological finds which show the earth to be millions of years old. Global warming is abig joke to these people.
I don't know how we are going to have any scientists worth their salt coming out of this next generation. If they don't believe in the age of the earth, how could they possibly contribute to science.
Meg, come on up to New York. We still teach real science up here. My in-law is out of luck in this state.
Yeah, I know that museum. I can't remember what it's called, but I think it's in Kentucky–maybe Arkansas.
As frustrating as it can be sometimes dealing with these people (and sometimes their insistence to teach Intelligent Design which is a whole different topic), I enjoy the challenge. My favorite thing for students who want to argue with me is to simply say, “If God is truly God and can do anything, then why would He put us here with no ability to adapt? So why NOT evolution?”.
I just wish we could stop looking at religion and science as two topics completely at odds with each other and start looking at how they complement one another.
"We mustn't let our passions destroy our dreams…"
