Henry VIII's Health in a Nutshell (8 page)

Did the king display a callous lack of empathy? A look at his behaviour after 1535 would make it impossible to argue otherwise. The older king was indubitably capable of slaughtering friends, family and spouses without any stronger feeling than feeling sorry for
himself
. Nevertheless, an older Henry is not the full story. When Henry was a freshly crowned monarch he eagerly tried to mend the rift the War of the Roses caused between the Tudors and his mother’s family. In a reversal of his father’s policy, the new king offered his Plantagenet kinfolk places at court, honoured them, and showed them royal favour
¹¹⁵
. Only one family member, the Duke of Buckingham, was stupid enough to be anything but grateful. Buckingham didn’t just want the king’s friendship, he wanted the king’s crown. The duke was so candid about his desire for the throne that it is somewhat mind-boggling. Buckingham bragged about prophecies which foretold that he would one day rule England, saying that God had killed the infant son born to Henry and Katherina of Aragon in order to punish the king and to pave the way for Buckingham’s ascent. The duke also declared, openly, that the king would never have an heir. Buckingham’s actions were brazenly treasonous. Henry, who had been incredibly patient in the matter, had no choice but to have his cousin executed in 1521, but he clearly did not enjoy the prospect
¹¹⁶
. His chancellor, Cardinal Wolsey, had to practically badger him into signing the death warrant. A young Henry was far from callous.

Insomuch as he was the king, it is impossible to determine whether or not Henry had a parasitic lifestyle. He was
expected
to live off taxes on the labours of others.

Then there is the question of whether or not Henry had poor behavioural controls or impulsivity. When he was an older man the king was certainly a slave to his impulses, but was this the case prior to the 1530s? His relationship with Anne Boleyn seems to indicate otherwise. Henry appears to have waited approximately seven years, from 1524/1525 until 1532, to consummate his union with Anne. It was only after years of frustration did he give up on the pope and wed Anne anyway. He never insisted that Anne give him her body as proof of her heart. He did not arrange to have his first wife murdered. He didn’t promise to marry Anne and then jilt her for a more politically expedient and financially rewarding bride. He even dithered when it came to giving Cardinal Wolsey the chop, despite the fact the prelate had actually descended into treasonous activity in his hatred for Anne. Shortly before his death, Wolsey foolishly offered his clandestine support to Katherina in order to frustrate Henry’s plan to gain an annulment, and began “advising foreign powers on the best tactics to use against his sovereign” in an attempt to “foment unrest in England” and “coerce Henry into leaving Anne”
¹¹⁷
. When one compares Wolsey’s slow fall from grace despite his guilt, and Cromwell’s rapid fall from grace despite his innocence, it seems clear that Henry’s behavioural controls had
become
poor rather than having always been poor.

Henry was also blessedly free from early behaviour problems or any signs of juvenile delinquency. In fact, he was positively cherubic as a child, and was possibly destined for the church. Not only was the infant Henry cute as a button, he was coddled by his mother in a way that was discouraged for his older brother, Arthur. His tutor, John Skelton, praised Henry not only for his keen mind, but for the boy’s inherent commitment to the idea of chivalric virtues and pious attitude toward religion. Even when he was very young Henry was already showing the star quality and athleticism that made him so beloved in his early reign, and he seems to have been petted by everyone but his rather stern father.

Could Henry be accused of a lack of realistic long-term goals? Granted, he wanted to recover the former English territories on the continent, wresting them by force of arms from the French, but was that an unreasonable goal for a king? Was it ludicrous that he should want to “remake Camelot” in his own court, or just the sign of an idealist young man? For monarchs, there is a fine line between rational and irrational ambition, and Henry needs to be measured on that scale. What is known is Henry had no plans to become the next Alexander the Great and conquer the world, and he did not make elaborate plans to go on Crusade like Richard the Lionheart. A psychopath would have aimed higher, or have pretended to be content with lower.

Henry can be justly accused of irresponsibility as a youthful monarch, content to leave the governing of England to wizened old men while he jousted, feasted, and impregnated his wife. This is not surprising in a young man who had led a sheltered almost cloistered existence prior to becoming king. Fun will always be more appealing than work. Furthermore, what is the difference between “irresponsible” and “good delegation” in a ruler? King John had been a micromanager and it had been a disservice to his country and his reign. Was Henry truly irresponsible to rely on older, more experience and learned counsellors? Nonetheless, Henry’s decisions as an older king – such as to go hunting with Katheryn Howard rather than rule his country -- were certainly problematic. Yet self-indulgence is not always a sign of egomania or psychopathy and it is impossible to say for sure where Henry fit on this scale at any particular time in his life.

The supposition that Henry failed to accept responsibility for own actions relies entirely on how old Henry was at the time. Young Henry was not prone to blaming others for his mistakes, as demonstrated by a jousting accident in 1524 when he was inadvertently handed his lance and set on course before his visor was lowered. This error could have easily killed him. When his opponent’s lance struck the king, it splintered and the potentially lethal shards blasted into Henry’s face. Nonetheless, the king graciously forgave those responsible and insisted that “no one was to blame but himself”
¹¹⁸
. In contrast, an older Henry would blame Anne Boleyn for the beheading of Thomas More, and would blame her again – even though she was already cold in her grave – for his treatment of his daughter Mary. The aged king also irrationally blamed those around him for his marriage to Anna of Cleves, the judicial murder of Thomas Cromwell, and his choice of Katheryn Howard as a fifth bride. It is plain that Henry refused to accept responsibly after 1535, but not before it.

Finally, do Henry’s many short-term marital relationships mark him as psychopath? Yes and no, because most were neither short nor consummated nor left voluntarily. His initial marriage to Katherina of Aragon spanned more than two decades. His marriage to Anne was less than four years long, but the relationship itself lasted for more than ten years. His third marriage was short, but inasmuch as his wife died he can hardly be held accountable for its dissolution. His fourth marriage was one he was forced into and never consummated, so is not really the same thing as a wedding in Vegas that went south three months into it. The end of his fifth marriage was not wholly voluntary either, in that he hadn’t fallen out of love with Katheryn, but instead had discovered what he believed to be treasonous behaviour. He remained married to Catherine Parr until his death, but in fairness it was a close shave for the queen. What is most curious about his marital record is that four out of five weddings occurred after his fortieth birthday. Was he psychopath after his birthday, but not before it?

One explanation for this may be that Henry was a sociopath. Whereas psychopaths are born, sociopaths are
made
:

Researchers tend to believe that sociopathy is the result of environmental factors, such as a child or teen’s upbringing in a very negative household that resulted in physical abuse, emotional abuse, or childhood trauma. Sociopaths, in general, tend to be more impulsive and erratic in their behaviour than their psychopath counterparts. While also having difficulties in forming attachments to others, some sociopaths may be able to form an attachment to a like-minded group or person. Unlike psychopaths, most sociopaths don’t hold down long-term jobs or present much of a normal family life to the outside world. When a sociopath engages in criminal behaviour, they may do so in an impulsive and largely unplanned manner, with little regard for the risks or consequences of their actions. They may become agitated and angered easily, sometimes resulting in violent outbursts. These kinds of behaviours increase a sociopath’s chances of being apprehended.
¹¹⁹

Did Henry become a sociopath? Part of the problem in answering that question is that phycologists are not exactly sure what makes a sociopath. In truth, it is as much as 50% genetics, and 50% “a confusing and not-yet-understood mixture of environmental factors”
¹²⁰
. Childhood abuse has a strong correlation to sociopathology and we know that Henry did not have an abusive childhood, but not all sociopaths were abused as children so that cannot rule out the king. There may be physical factors as well. It appears to be possible to become a sociopath due to a traumatic brain injury
¹²¹
, such as the one Henry sustained while jousting. Again, the problem with blaming Henry’s behavioural change entirely on that incident is the timing. His behaviour had already become erratic and murderous several months – if not years -- before he entered the tilting field.

It is rare, if not unheard of, for a non-sociopathic adult to metamorphose into a sociopath. The roots of true sociopathology seem to lie in childhood. Notwithstanding that fact, affluence can lead people to occasionally
act
like sociopaths. Multiple psychological experiments have demonstrated that the sense of entitlement that comes with wealth and power makes people “more likely to cheat, lie and break the law than those who were poorer”
¹²²
. Rich people are also exceedingly prone to lack empathy, caring little to nothing of the needs of others
¹²³
. Although Marie Antoinette never said, “Let them eat cake!”, this attitude is found in the affluent and influential more often than it is not. Additionally, moneyed individuals were more likely to “endorse essentialist lay theories of social class categories (i.e., that social class is founded in genetically based, biological differences)” to explain why those who were less prosperous deserved to be so, and thus poverty did not pose a moral or social obligation on the wealthy for resolution
¹²⁴
. This effect is entirely cultural. In psychological experiments where the wealthy could be induced to think of themselves as less wealthy, they were dramatically more compassionate
¹²⁵
. A lack of empathy and compassion is the clearest, most distinctive trait of a sociopath, and it is obvious that wealth can induce people to mimic sociopathic behaviour. So, was Henry a sociopath, or was he just rich?

Other historians theorize that Henry was a narcissist who was prone to “brutality” and “deadly temper tantrums”
¹²⁶
, and that his condition was enhanced by a particularly severe crisis of generativity, more commonly known as a midlife crisis
¹²⁷
. While the accusation of a midlife crisis is indisputable, the idea that Henry had narcissism is more open to debate. Everyone has a kernel of narcissism within them, but what most people think of as a narcissist is actually someone with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) – a person who has carried the normal infantile belief that the world revolves around them abnormally into adulthood. According to the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
(5
^th
edition), to truly have NPD a person must have exaggerated self-appraisals and fluctuating self-esteem, goals that are influenced by a sense of entitlement, impaired empathy, superficial abilities to form relationships, as well as grandiose and attention-seeking behaviour. NPD usually display most of the following traits:

1. 1. Has a grandiose sense of self-importance, e.g. exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements.
   
2. 2. Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty or ideal love.
   
3. 3. Believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people, or institutions.
   
4. 4. Requires excessive admiration.
   
5. 5. Has a sense of entitlement, i.e. unreasonable expectations of especially favourable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations.
   
6. 6. Is interpersonally exploitative, i.e. takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends.
   
7. 7. Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others.
   
8. 8. Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her.
   
9. 9. Shows arrogant, haughty behaviour or attitudes.
   

Again, how do you evaluate these traits in a medieval monarch? Henry’s self-importance was reality as much as any sense of grandiosity. It is true that Henry was preoccupied with ideal love and an ideal world of chivalry, but was it pathologically so? He did not have to merely believe himself to be special; he
was
special. Henry certainly loved to be the centre of attention, but his sense of entitlement was a legitimate one. He was actually entitled to being treated as … well, a
king
. Did he exploit others, or seek out relationships that would benefit him? Not really. Many a highborn nobleman bemoaned Henry’s promotion of “low people”, and he certainly didn’t chose his brides because of the wealth and influence they could give him. Neither did Henry show excessive or unreasonable envy, and if he thought others were envious of him – that was based on observation, not narcissism. His arrogance cannot be assessed as narcissistic or not because it is impossible to find abnormal arrogance in a man who was believed by himself and others to be the best human being alive in his whole kingdom. Henry had a huge ego, and liked to be fêted, but it is impossible to tell if he were a full-blown narcissist.