How did Edward die?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Lady Jane
latebar7609 — 18 years ago(August 19, 2007 11:04 PM)
What exactly was wrong with King Edward that caused him to die? Does anyone know if it is true that he was kept alive, but in great pain, by using arsenic?
-
little_miss_sunnydale — 18 years ago(August 20, 2007 04:50 AM)
Edward's health became worse in the last years of his reign. In April 1552 he had measles and smallpox which he recovered from (and he recorded this in his chronicler, which was like a kind of diary he kept). But he recovered from the illness and he didnt appear to be dying. But he fell ill again nearly a year after in the early spring of 1553. His symptoms strongly suggest that he suffered from consumption (which today we know as tuberculosis). His health rapidly declined and by July the same year, he was dead.
It appears that Edwards doctors gave him medicines, first in an attempt to improve his health and hopefully cure him and then later it was used as means to prolong his life. But historians arent sure who was behind this and whether this was actually maliciously done. So some historians believe that John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland was purposely prolonging Edwards life in order for him to change the succession in favour of his daughter-in-law. Other historians have stressed how Edward was really the one who changed the will due to his dismay over the possibility that his Catholic sister would be his heir. So this suggests he wished to be alive for as long as possible. Personally I think Edward, knowing he was ill, spent as much time possible altering his succession and would have welcomed the extra time the medicines could provide. But I think in his last days this advantage turned into misery and dread when he wished to die and yet his life was prolonged. I think in the last days Dudley advised the medicines to continue because he needed time to secure Jane greys position and his own. But I do think Edward in the beginning of his illness agreed with the treatment in order to give himself time for his plans.
Noli me tangere; for Caesar's I am -
little_miss_sunnydale — 18 years ago(September 07, 2007 04:20 AM)
I've also read that congenital Syphilis inherited from his father probably compounded the other illnesses.
Thats highly debatable, as of course the theory that Henry had syphilis is of course just theory and not determined fact. Personally I dont think Edward, nor his siblings suffered from congenital syphilis and that their medical problems can be explained otherwise. Edward, although stereotyped as this sickly boy throughout his life, was able to recover from illnesses like measles. He developed tuberculosis which was not uncommon then and there was lack of effective treatment to combat the disease.
As for Henry VIII, personally I dont think he had syphilis, as within his detailed medical information left to us, it does not appear that he sought treatment for the disease. And Henry was highly afraid of illnesses and if sick sought for treatment. The French king, Francis I, suffered from syphilis and sought medical treatment for it; it is highly unusual that Henry would have the disease and not seek treatment from his physicians. There was also a lack of rumours at court that the king had the disease, and many courtiers always kept up to date with the kings health and even knew intimate secrets. Also if he had the disease who did he get it from; highly doubtful that it was from five of his wives (he claimed to have never slept with the fourth wife). There were of course his mistresses but we only definitely knew of two, Bessie Blout and Mary Boleyn and their other respective partners did not suffer from the disease. Plus the historians who try to argue that he had syphilis claim he had it by the time his daughter Mary was born (as they argue she had congenital syphilis) but Blout and Mary Boleyn were his mistresses after Mary was born. Of course he could have caught it from someone we dont know about, but then again we have lack of evidence to prove he ever sought treatment for the disease (and he certainly wasnt embarrassed about those sort of problems, as he talked frankly about male impotence to his doctors).
Im just not convinced of the theory, although its interesting one.
Noli me tangere; for Caesar's I am -
grandmabrat — 16 years ago(January 10, 2010 02:10 PM)
apparently Henry did have syphillis and it is critical at which point in the disease that the child is conceived. If at the right point the child has the disease, if later when the father is not contagious it can be okay with the pregnancy. This has long been the speculation with Henry. As a king he may have slept around a bit and carried the disease from an unknown period.
