The REAL Cause Of Death Of Arthur Tudor - Henry VIII's Older Brother

The Real Cause of Death of Arthur Tudor - Henry VIII’s Older Brother
Henry VIII could very easily have never been King. He’s known today as England’s most famous and brutal Kings, having six wife of which two of them were executed by Henry’s orders. Inside the Tower of London, Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard were executed and these events tell us what length’s Henry would go to get his own way, reigning terror over the country. Over 70,000 people were executed during Henry’s time on the throne, but things could and possibly should have been very different across England. Henry was not the first in line to the throne, it was only after the death of his elder brother that Henry became the successor. Arthur Tudor is one of history’s great what ifs, what if he hadn’t have died at the age of 15 inside Ludlow Castle. If he didn’t the face of English History would have been changed, and we would never have had his younger brother Henry VIII on the throne. But today we look at, ‘The Real Cause Of Death of Arthur Tudor, Henry VIII’s Older Brother.’

[@elizabethmcglothlin5406]

People, including princes, died very easily in those days. And doctors, while doing their best, were even more dangerous than the illness.

[@leonieromanes7265]

True, all the bleeding, purging and feeding ill people poison, did more harm then good.

[@JediJan]

I only read last week a surgeon in the 1800s, who wrote that doctors should scrub their hands before attending to pregnant women and other patients. He had noticed that there were more women dying of birth fever who had male doctors than those who had only midwives. He tried to enforce hand washing amongst doctors, more cleanliness in hospital, but unfortunately very unpopular, tragically was ridiculed, stripped of all respect and placed in a mental facility by his wife to later die there. It was many years later that it was proved that the doctors were in fact responsible for the spreading of the bacteria that caused most of these deaths (sepsis).

[@pawwalker3492]

@@JediJan that was Ignaz Semmelweis, a German-Hungarian physician and scientist. It was Semmelweis's papers that Joseph Lister came upon decades later, taking up the cause (and a lot of credit) for antiseptic environments in medicine. And he did die in an insane asylum

[@jameshamilton8245]

@@JediJan my great grandmother often assisted her neighbors as a practical midwife if they were so poor they would not summon a doctor because they could not afford to pay them. At her memorial service one doctor confided to her daughters that there was one time when she became concerned that the childbirth was not going well and sent someone to fetch a doctor. He arrived and started immediately toward the mother. And my great grandmother stepped between him and the patient with a scalpel in hand demanding him to wash and sanitize before setting a hand on the patient. He said that he had been embarrassed because he was a strong proponent of properly sanitizing before touching any patient and had often taught the women who assisted their neighbors how to properly clean their hands. He continued that was just one example of why he was always relieved to have her assistance during a delivery. Because she always made sure everything and everyone was properly sanitized and she was wise enough to know the limits of her knowledge and skill and was not afraid to summon him early enough for him to make a difference in the outcome.

[@danteerskine7678]

@@leonieromanes7265 let's be honest, these monarchs were complete nutjobs and sincerely, I don't envy any of them knowing they had poor lifestyle and poor hygiene. If Henry Tudor, bloody Mary, Richard the third, Charles the second were born in the 20th century, they would be considered as psychopaths.

[@franm.8343]

I came across Prince Arthur's Tomb by accident whilst visiting Worcester Cathedral, I had no idea he was buried there. I just assumed he was buried in Westminster Abbey. But on reflection I understand why he was buried there. And King John is buried there too, at his own request.

[@ds1868]

Not that many monarchs are buried in Westminster Abbey. There simply isn't the room. As it is coffins are stacked up with each other a good example being Elizabeth I stacked on top of Mary Queen of Scots. Lots of examples of King's being buried elsewhere, with quite a few buried in St George's Chapel Windsor Castle.

[@amandajones6481]

The 'sweating sickness' was terrifying for the people of England in the 15th AND 16th centuries. Thomas Cromwell's wife and 2 daughters died from it. And Anne Boleyn caught it too, but she, of course, survived. (Although she died anyway by execution). There was a saying, at the time, about the sweating sickness 😷 that went:"Well in the morning, dead by the evening!"

[@trevorsmith7753]

Caused by the toxic metals in cometary/meteoritic debris in the atmosphere. Same as the 1348-50 'plague'.

[@newfiesmum]

That was about the Black death.

[@areiaaphrodite]

Arthur most likely wouldn't have done Katherine so wrong like Henry did. He most likely wasn't in love with Katherine but he at least respected her.

[@KDSima]

But didn’t he respect her until he didn’t?

[@Vesnicie]

All indications were that the young couple liked each other well enough. But he died too young to be able to make any really educated guesses about what sort of a man, much less a king, he would have become. Keep in mind it's sometimes the "sickly" ones you really have to look out for!

[@anthonytroisi6682]

It is also possible that Katherine would have had the same difficulty giving Arthur a surviving male heir. If Arthur did not have a son, he would not have reacted the Henry did because Arthur had a younger brother to continue the dynasty. If Arthur fathered a son in his teens, there would have been an adult instead of a child to inherit the throne on the death of a monarch in late middle age.

[@areiaaphrodite]

@@Vesnicie I don't think he could've been much worse than his brother 😅

[@MonaLisaFaceMusic]

@@anthonytroisi6682Science shows that gender is determined by the male. Arthur very well could have produced a male heir through Catherine.

[@oliviatree]

Author had two sisters survive to adulthood, Mary and Margaret, one becoming queen of Scotland and the other queen of France.

[@pedanticradiator1491]

Arthur

[@BikerBytes]

I am from Worcester and would often visit Arthur’s tomb in the cathedral and ponder on the what if’s.

[@sarahcummings1992]

From Worcester too

[@aileensmith6806]

He would have been married to Catherine for sure.

[@cynthiawalker5620]

@@aileensmith6806 He WAS married to Catherine of Aragon. She claimed the marriage was unconsummated. That’s why she then was able to marry Henry who was besotted with her.

[@ds1868]

@@aileensmith6806 They were married for three months. The claim by Catherine that the marriage was unconsummated is hard to believe.

[@aileensmith6806]

@@ds1868 what I have read he was in “ poor health” from day one … & he was young. Could the marriage have been consummated. Maybe. Could young ladies make it appear that they were virginal, of course. But no one will ever know the answer to that question.

[@Vesnicie]

Henry is not known as England's most brutal king. Someone like Longshanks would be a far better candidate for that. Maybe the biggest d-bag though.

[@i.p.956]

His tomb is on my list to visit. He is one of those huge what ifs that I often think about.

[@areiaaphrodite]

New "What If" for thought. If Arthur became King with Katherine as his Queen, would Mary Tudor have become Queen of Spain and Holy Roman Empress by keeping the engagement to Charles, Katherine's nephew? Henry married her to Louis of France to for an alliance to France and broke her engagement to Charles. Only because Louis died soon after, was we able to marry Charles Brandon. If she never married Charles Brandon, her children would have taken the Spanish throne and her granddaughter, Lady Jane Grey would have never existed!

[@robinlillian9471]

Mary Tudor would never have been born. She was the daughter of Henry & Katherine.

[@mikebetty9117]

Wrong Mary Tudor, the one referred to is the daughter of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York, I.e. Henry VIII’s sister

[@areiaaphrodite]

@@robinlillian9471 I was referring to Mary Tudor, daughter of Henry VII but your comment is forgivable since (eerily) both Aunt and niece were engaged to the same Charles at some point 😅

[@areiaaphrodite]

@@mikebetty9117 Thank you for clearing that up 👍

[@michellebaker6302]

I wouldn't have existed if Mary & Charles Brandon didn't marry because I'm a descendant of theirs.

[@VampireSexGoddess]

Anne & the others might've had happier lives. We might not also have known about them.

[@user-hu5iw4lb4x]

That’s very insightful, makes one think , thanks

[@sandracarey1985]

He was called “delicate “ in your description. I’m thinking he had a poor immune system and the flu hit him worse than Catherine.

[@janehaylay1152]

Arthur wasn't bulk of teen as his younger brother, but rather slender. Arthur took after Tudors, while Henry after Yorks. Arthur was also of much calmer personality than Henry(who probably had ADHD), so in comparison to Henry, Arthur seemed more delicate. Doesn't mean he was frail or unhealthy. But it seems to me, that Tudor males, especially teenagers had worse immunity, especially against lung related diseases. (Though there isn't evidence Sweat affected lungs, who knows?)

[@christina3521]

@@janehaylay1152 didn’t his father, H7 die of tb? & yes so true H8 looked very much like his mother’s father when younger!! See one of the “historical faces Lutubers

[@Orphen42O]

@@janehaylay1152 If he looked delicate, Henry VII would never have sent him away from Court because the king doted on the boy. The "sweating sickness" was disproportionately fatal among healthy, well-nourished young adults. Whether or not Arthur consummated his marriage to Katherine is a mystery, but, if anyone doubted that they were healthy and old enough to consummate the marriage, Katherine would not have been allowed to accompany Arthur to Ludlow.

[@jackx4311]

One thing you have to allow for is the way that words change in meaning over time. If we describe someone as 'delicate', that may well mean 'not very strong' - but we can't be sure that the word had the same meaning in Tudor times. It mau well have meant something subtly different, such as 'lightly built' - rather than weak, or in poor physical health. As an example; the phrase "the proof of the pudding is in the eating" sounds odd, and most would say it ought to be "the test of the pudding is in the eating". But go back a couple of hundred years, and if somebody said they had 'proved' something, that meant they had tested it! So when the first establishments for testing the soundness of gun barrels were set up in England, they were (and still are) called 'Proof Houses' - as that was where gun barrels were 'proved' - i.e., tested.

[@ABerCul]

Dehydration from the sweating profusely is probably what killed him.

[@lildave420]

I really enjoy your videos! Keep them coming!

[@oldgysgt]

No Henry VIII, no split with the Catholic Church, no Church of England, no "Bloody" Queen Marry, no Queen Elizabeth, no Spanish Armada, no Stewart Kings, probably no Hanover Kings, and so no George III, and maybe no American Revolutionary War. YES, the world would have been a VERY different place if Arthur Tudor had lived to produce heirs.

[@mrsmerily]

Same time it doesnt rule out the fact, that Cathrine would not have been able to carry a child and produced only a girl. In that case still Henry would have ended up in thrown and had to produce male heir.

[@oldgysgt]

@@mrsmerily; Catherine carried 6 children to term, 3 boys and 3 girls. 4 were still born, 1 boy died at 2 months, and one girl, Mary, survived into adulthood. there is no indication Catherine could not have given Arthur children, had he lived.

[@michiperkins144]

Wow what an amazing thought, history would have been completely different!

[@monnicamarie]

Rest In Peace ✌️ Prince Arthur. I think Queen Catherine never stopped loving you! May they both Rest In Peace.

[@janehaylay1152]

I always get chill seeing the portrait in which she wears same pendant as Arthur in one of his portraits.

[@angusgannonpainterofmoralp2156]

@@janehaylay1152 Which portrait of Catherine of Aragon?

[@angusgannonpainterofmoralp2156]

@@janehaylay1152 Since I just started studying Catherine of Aragon in depth, I don’t know the portrait yet. If you see my Twitter, you will see I am working to advance the Cause to canonize her. It’s unbelievable she is not declared a Saint by both the Roman & Anglican churches. Like St Thomas More.

[@janehaylay1152]

@@angusgannonpainterofmoralp2156 It's actually a 18th century copy of now lost original. (Actually pretty good copy, there are some very bad ones) National Portrait gallery has it labelled as NPG 163, and they have mistake in description. Theirs say c. 1530, but is more towards c.1525 She is wearing dark brown(maybe black) dress, has brown sleeves, golden undersleeves and holds some greenery.

[@janehaylay1152]

@@angusgannonpainterofmoralp2156 I am actually against Fisher and More being proclaimed saints. Both men told their household that lying for good cause is ok to do. That it can be absolved later on. Sorry but that is not right christian way. That is bending rules to your liking. ... About Catherine. Too much propaganda has been written about her, and most of it is lie. Succesful regent and warrior Queen-lie? Her poverty as widow? Overexagerated(it was psychological humilitation more than physical struggling, and partly due to her being unable to budget(who would know how after being raised as princess) and even as wife she was not as saintly, nor perfect as she is being portrayed. She was far more human. I used to be big fan, but now I am conflicted. I know now, that really lot of common 'truths' about her are fabrications. And I not so sure about who was the bad guy in the marriage at first. Henry wins at the end, but Catherine at times was beyond unsupportive. I know it was probably because she got traumatized as child(her family took zealous to next level) and that she tried to be always good girl and good daughter. But it was as if she couldn't tell right from wrong at times. She stood up by her father, even when he did big wrongs, and it damaged her relationship with Henry greatly. Catherine was blind to her father's faults and even when it was clear he betrayed Henry, she still defended her father and even complained that Henry was being bad ally to her father. If my partner told me this, I'd be very hurt and I'd never trust that person's judment or them again. How can you say you love me, when somebody betrayed me, and you make me the bad guy? Want me to make ammends... Honestly it seems like Henry and Catherine both entered marriage with big issues of their own, and neither was able to help the other overcome them. But Catherine from what I painstakenly learned(mucking through dung of layers propaganda), was very insecure(even at times when Henry only had times for her), was not above telling white lies(I know of two), didn't clear up lies her former household told about Arthur, didn't come true after she lost child in 1510(and no way it was hushed without all in the know lying their asses off). There are certainly instances in her life, when I wouldn't call her perfect wife, and some when I wouldn't even call her bad wife. I hate to say it and I know she did it because she tried to be good-but in the end, on several ocassions she was the toxic spouse. Not Henry. Not in 1510s. (He topped her at the end, because his own issues got to him.) And I really wish people would try to show the real woman, full of her inner strugglers, full of her complicity, instead of insisting on this fake image of her. She wasn't saint, she was human. ... Blaming everything on Henry won't get you anywhere either. By looking at Henry's medical history, you won't find she had 6+ long week infection in her belly after stillbirth of her first child. Nor that she might have had eating disorder and food intolerance. By focusing on Henry's family(his dad), you won't find how much her own father ruined her life(directly or indirectly)-he totally didn't deserve her defending him. ... And I don't get why true human woman is supposed to be less interesting? So, she struggled with languages. Many people do! But she worked hard to overcome this issue! So she forgot to raise troops and actually didn't make Flodden happen, maybe she was too preocupied because finally she was with child after long time, and all her mind was upon it. That is understandable, and Surrey managed in the end. She herself didn't take credit for that battle, people around her spread that lie. And people keep spreading lies. Sometimes because they believe them, but sometimes because they don't want to know the truth. People are human, they make mistakes.

[@onagaali2024]

Your videos are too good to be so short. They keep you wanting more. The Tudor dynasty was definitely a period full of "what ifs?" I have always wondered what kind of King Prince Arthur Tudor would have been.

[@redmi9834]

Strange irony that Henry went to extraordinary lengths to ensuring the Tudor dynasty would continue even to murdering two wives and divorcing two others and breaking with his church.

[@NinjaGrrrl7734]

Now I'm going to remind you that I told you a while back you that your channel would take off because you're really good at this. You won't remember me, but I remember you, and that's the important part. Look at those numbers!!!! I'm so damned proud of you. ♥️

[@janblackhurst1652]

Henry VII had 4 children who survived to adulthood. Arthur, Margaret, Henry and Mary. Margaret was married off to the King of Scotland and her granddaughter was Mary, Queen of Scots, whose son, James, became King James I of England after the death of Elizabeth I. Mary was married off to the King of France. After his death she married Charles Brandon. Their daughter, Francis married Henry Grey. Their daughter was Lady Jane Grey who was nominated by King Edward VI as his successor. She was beheaded and Mary I became Queen.

[@susanmccormick6022]

Pity that he passed from the sweat brought by Henry Tudor's mercenaries.Talk about sins of the father's,poor lad.Henry VIII was destined for the church & when you consider some of those 'holy' men at that time,he would probably have fitted in very well.

[@alancoe1002]

There are reports of sweating sickness in Cheshire in summer of 1485, before Henry landed in Wales. The military activity of that year may have spread the disease from there, rather than it having a Continental origin. It seems wrapped in mystery.

[@JRobbySh]

The English Church at the time was relatively pious. Their reputation suffered at the hands of reformers both Catholic and Protestants. who expected perhaps too much.

[@alancoe1002]

@@JRobbySh Since the Black Death, there were cracks in the monolithic power of the Church. Check out Lollardism in this period. It was a pre-Protestantism of sort with some highborn supporters like John of Gaunt. But his son and grandson, Henrys IV&V, would nearly stamp it out. The clergy took a major hit during the Peasants Revolt, too.

[@redmi9834]

I am not sure how chaste he would have been. Wolsey had a mistress with whom he had a son and daughter. The son got a title and the daughter entered Sion Abbey as a nun.

[@patriciapalmer1377]

I read at university that although extremely atheletic, Henry was being groomed to take his place as the leader of the Church in England. He was extensively tutored by theologians and church scholars and considerrd himself a scolar on the subject and pious in private. He took his position very seriously and was ill prepared mentally, and anxious about assuming the duties of monarch. The bluster and pomp were his defense mechanisms as was the drive to excel in sports and public athletic events.

[@pedanticradiator1491]

Which was why he left it to people like Wolsey and Cromwell to run the country

[@CeruleanTalon]

He was extremely athletic, but I've always wondered if everyone allowed him to win at everything for obvious reasons?

[@andrewg.carvill4596]

Groomed to take his place as leader of the Church in England - as Archbishop of Canterbury. It never occurred to me before, but might that 'grooming' have been one of the things that put it into Henry's mind to make himself leader of the Church in England as King, thus breaking down the traditional division of authority between Church and King that in some way 'made' Western Christendom? I had always thought his motive for taking over the rule of the Church was to get his marriage to Katherine of Aragon dissolved.

[@patriciapalmer1377]

@@andrewg.carvill4596 His lengthy education on religious law was what prompted his challenge; again, he considered himself a scholar on the subject and up to any argument the Vatican had. However he was a King, and "divinely ordained and anointed " as such, coupled with, by that time, an ego to match and deeply affronted at any argument against him, so love of Bolyn aside, he was going to run that show regardless, Pope be damned.

[@patriciapalmer1377]

@@CeruleanTalon I wouldn't doubt it. Would you want to win against him ? I'd spend time learning how to lose without appearing like I was trying to !!

[@nancyM1313]

Enjoyed this video too. Tyvmuch 🌹

[@drelevatorlestrange]

I've always wondered if the sweating sickness was a specific type of virus that died out, there doesn't seem to be a contemporary version of this illness

[@Dulcimertunes]

Malaria?

[@luga718]

@@Dulcimertunes Malaria is a tropical disease.

[@kathbleach6251]

@@luga718 malaria was frequent in the uk due to the marshes

[@TenThirteen-1013]

TB.

[@stephenlitten1789]

Seems the most likely cause is a hantavirus, the main vector of which is fleas on rodents, and Sweating Sickness was similar to the Picardy Sweat but more lethal. Interestingly, only one outbreak of the sweats spread beyond the region controlled by the English crown.

[@jgibbs651]

Marches, not "marshes": march was/is a term to describe land that neighbours on another, in other words, border lands. The Welsh Marches roughly follow the line of Offa's Dyke. "The sweat" was an illness that was imported into England with the mercenary troops employed by Henry VII to take the throne. Although some have wondered whether it was a form of typhus, a more likely suspect is either a form of malaria or an infection linked to flour, such as a hantavirus.

[@Orphen42O]

An equally interesting alternate history conjecture would be what if Edmund, Henry VIII's younger brother. had lived? If Henry VIII had a younger brother who lived to adulthood and sired sons, the male Tudor bloodline would have continued. There would have a Tudor male heir on the throne even if it was not Henry VIII's son. Maybe Henry VIII would not have felt so much pressure to provide male heirs if his father had provided more male healthy male heirs.

[@mlr4524]

But then we wouldn't have had Queen Elizabeth I or the Elizabethan Age....or possibly even Shakespeare, given her patronage.

[@mrsmerily]

@@mlr4524 I totally agree... also like it or not protestant movement aka what english church was build up on brought mor enlightment and at least commoners who did not speak latin could understood what was said in the church, because before that services were in latin... most people were forced to go to church in sundays and sit there hours not even understanding what was said.

[@cassia-andor6445]

I’ve often thought about this, and besides the points already made, what do you think Mary and her cousins (assuming Edmund had children) would have thought of each other. If Edmund had several healthy sons would they think themselves superior to her? Also, how would he have reacted to Henry’s uh, lavish spendings? It’s the what-ifs that make me curious. Also, has it been proven beyond a doubt that Edward (supposedly another younger brother of Henry) never existed and was a name mix-up with Edmund, or did he exist and die young, as well?

[@Orphen42O]

@@cassia-andor6445 If Edmund survived and had male heirs, Henry probably would have married his daughter Mary to Edmund's oldest son. In this way, Mary eventually would become Queen of England and her oldest son would go on to become King of England with a very high percentage of Tudor blood.

[@pk6810]

@@cassia-andor6445 I think that has been an error. The reason I believe he didnt exist is due to the altar piece that Henry 7th had commissioned after the death of Elizabeth of York and Arthur (it has been dated around 1505-1508). In the picture it is both the monarchs kneeled in prayer with their progeny behind them. Behind E of Y there are 4 daughters, Margaret, Elizabeth (died in infancy) Mary and Catherine(died in infancy), behind Henry there are 3 sons, Arthur (died a few years previous) Henry Jr and Edmund(died in infancy). So, if he was including his deceased wife, 2 sons and 2 daughters you would of thought had their been another son he would be in the painting also. Therefore I think he never did exist.

[@kaloarepo288]

I wonder if England would still be Catholic if Prince Arthur had lived?Would be interesting to construct an alternative history using this premise.

[@anittahakansson3750]

I absolutely think so. CATHERINE of Aragon showed all the time in her lonely life abandoned by Henry VIII that she was a devoted Catholic. And England (and then many Scandinavian countries as well) would have turned into Catholic faith.

[@vetsai8199]

I think Protestantism would have come to England eventually, but not as soon as it actually did! Most likely England would have been Catholic for another 2-3 generations.

[@areiaaphrodite]

Almost certainly. England became Protestant because the Pope refused Henry's divorce from Katherine. It was mostly Anne Boleyn's prodding that made Henry think he could be head of his own church so, if she never had the ear of the King, it would have stayed the way it was.

[@areiaaphrodite]

@@vetsai8199 How do you figure? I mean most other European monarchies (present and deposed) remained Catholic (often to the end of the line).

[@collnss]

Except for not recognizing the Pope as head of the Church, Henry VIII was faithful to the rituals of the Roman Catholic Church. I think he still saw himself as Defender of the Faith but he was completely delusional. In his mind his “conscience” was never wrong.

[@Tasha9315]

Arthur's parents had 4 surviving children. He had 2 sisters, Margaret and Mary.

[@gregorylittle1461]

I think the Conqueror may have "out-murdered" Henry VIII. I've seen over 100,000 as an estimate.

[@JRobbySh]

William the Bastard was, after all, a conqueror. And Henry Vii was a usurper. Henry VIII was a very moderate ruler by comparison so as he had hopes of producing an heir with Catherine. Then he became a monster.

[@alancoe1002]

Mostly in Yorkshire and in fighting Hereford the Wake. That number is almost certainly inflated, but still horrific. Like the 28,000 dead number for the Battle of Towton that's still repeated. Logistical impossibility. But even eyewitnesses can be wildly off. Salazar, the Spanish envoy was at at Bosworth Field and he claimed 10,000 dead on each side! Almost as many as were actually there. So... The reprisals for the Pilgrimage of Grace by Henry VIII were mostly upon monks and a surprising number of gentry, but I can't find any solid numbers. So I believe that you are right about the basically genocidal nature of William the Bastard's being far worse, and without even the pretense of legality. The objective was terror.

[@leticiagarcia9025]

If the sweating sickness was caused by the hantavirus; viruses tend to affect people differently. We will never know his cause of death. It’s a mystery. Like many good mysteries we have a need to solve them.

[@Orphen42O]

It would be ironic if Henry VII's son died of the sweating sickness because many people at the time believed the sweating sickness was introduced to England by the foreign soldiers who helped Henry VII defeat Richard III. Even today, no one knows what caused the sweating sickness but I personally believe it was a hantavirus.

[@janehaylay1152]

@@Orphen42O According to Erasmus Sweat appared first in 1483. But 1485 outbreak was probably much larger. Richard III certainly must have been aware what Sweat was, otherwise Stanley couldn't excuse himself thanks to it. Erasus travelled to England first in 1499. It is possible he met people who lived through first outbreak, so there is no reason to doubt him.

[@collnss]

@@Orphen42O Hantavirus. Had to look up. Now I have another virus to be fearful of. Lol. It does not appear to be transmitted from person to person and since Catherine was ill, but recovered, I’m going with the theory of Sweating Sickness.

[@Orphen42O]

If Stamley caught the Sweating Sickness from those who survived it or who were immune to it, then he probably was one of the earliest Englishmen who caught it. If the rumor is true that the Sweating sickness was brought over by Henry VII's foreign troops, then it is possible that Stanley had contact with Henry Tudor or his supporters before the Bosworth battle, proving that he was making early plans to betray Richard. If this theory is true, then the Sweating Sickness had an effect on English History long before it possibly took the life of Prince Andrew.

[@mytwocents848]

I would imagine living in those cold castle walls would have caused the illness and deaths of many people at that time. It is interesting that there has never been another British king named Arthur. There are so many Henrys and Charles, but no other Arthur as far as I know.

[@catherineball944]

What do you mean no "other" Arthur? There's never been an English King named Arthur

[@robertsettle2590]

@@catherineball944 and there NEVER will be either!!!

[@Landstalker1999]

Yeah especially in the British Isles I bet those old middle age castles were cold/humid/moldy.

[@annbower6278]

Arthur was born with issues making him less robust in health than his young brother Henry, Arthur had a weak immune system that doctors at that time had not yet identified since their medical knowledge was rudimentary & insufficient compared to todays medical knowledge.

[@jackieb.2642]

There is no evidence of that though.

[@winnifredforbes1114]

Damn, those castles must have been cold! No wonder they all died young!😱😹

[@cloggy010]

thanx!

[@brettsprang7991]

Thank You

[@stephaniehand503]

thanks

[@maearcher4721]

I believe Sweating Sickness is most likely cause. Catherine's parents asked Henry VII to remove her from unhealthy place where prince of Wales died, later described as unhealthy situation. Ludlow castle wasn't lavish, but it wasn't derelict or unhealthy to live in, hence unhealthiness must have come from some disease lurking around. That points to either plague or sweating sickness, but had it been plague, funeral would be kept simple and small.

[@collnss]

The tomb is magnificent but I wonder why no effigy? Was that not common at the time for Royalty? Off topic, can effigies be considered a true likeness of the deceased during this period?

[@biggirlbri]

Great video but slow down on the panning and please don’t use the round bubble view when filming.

[@cassandraralph5906]

I would like to put in another theory, at the risk of being shot at, perhaps Arthur Tudor was accidentally poisoned by badly cooked chicken or meat which was common in those days, or deliberately poisoned at the behest of his younger brother Henry Tudor, and Catherine of Aragon was the unfortunate side victim, who managed to survive. Remember Henry Tudor ended up becoming one of worst tyrants of English royalty.

[@mrsmerily]

Do you even know how young Henry was at that time? He was 11 yo. He didnt live in the household of the future king. I am sorry to be hursh, but your theory is there with flatearth one.

[@rebeccacollins5333]

Theres a mistake in this, elizabeth of York had four children, Arthur, henry, Mary and margaret

[@pedanticradiator1491]

She had more but they died very young

[@Bildgesmythe]

I've found it odd how many kings were named Henry, and how few named Authur. Is there a reason?

[@Orphen42O]

@@AzathothTheGreat The name "Arthur" was associated with Wales and Henry VII wanted to highlight his own Welsh ancestry.

[@suepem]

What a loss for the world. Poor boy.

[@glencmac]

I'm always interested in "The Sweating Sickness". It is interesting that it hits the British harder than foreigners living in the country, if it bothers them at all. I would like to propose a cause: thyroxine intoxication, from the consumption of animal thyroid. Consumption can lead to sweating, heart arrhythmias, and quick onset of death. Though in Arthur's case, that it lingered, it almost sounds like malaria.

[@JediJan]

I thought it was assumed to be from TB.

[@glencmac]

@@JediJan That was Edward VI

[@JuliahistoryLover]

I’m sure you are in no need of content ideas, So I hope you’re not offended with this idea, and I might be the only one who would be interested in this, but I’m always fascinated about these castles and how they connect throughout history. It would be really cool to see a series on Ludlow castle for example and all the interesting things that happened there like King Arthur died but what other notable historical things happened in that castle… Just thinking out loud. Love all your videos thank you for making them!!!

[@justadjustor8993]

Wow, was that your own footage of Arthur and Catherine's apartments? 😃

[@janicesmyth1713]

Very sad a great loss .

[@ladycharlenegrace8023]

I think you've done a good job on this video thank you for your hard work. It is very likely author and Catherine were stricken with"The Sweat" because well this disease was almost always deadly for an English person whereas for a person from the continent they might get sick from it but they wouldn't die and a lot of times they wouldn't even get sick so Catherine surviving and pour off their passing fits that pattern It's a shame he died I bet he'd been a good King

[@leonieromanes7265]

Does anyone know what the sweating sickness was? Was it some type of flu or malaria. I read somewhere that European mercenaries who fought for Henry the 7th brought the sweating sickness to Britain. European people do seem to have developed more resistance to it than the English.

[@bradydomann3102]

@@leonieromanes7265 I don’t think there’s a definitive answer to what the Sweat was, but there are some theories (which I cannot recall now).

[@leonieromanes7265]

@@bradydomann3102 I guess it will have to remain a medical mystery.

[@JediJan]

@@leonieromanes7265 I understood it was TB.

[@mlr4524]

@@leonieromanes7265 See the Wikipedia entry for 'Sweating sickness'....they speculate it was a type of hantavirus.

[@Saffron-sugar]

Does anyone else think it’s weird that the oldest son was not named after his father, but the second oldest son was?

[@shawroberts5149]

Arthur, the legendary king was associated with Wales. Henry VII was of Wales...

[@tsarina24honolulu87]

I think its weird you assumed people are the same because the have the same first name. Lot of learning you need to do.

[@Unknown17]

@@tsarina24honolulu87 I think it's weird that you totally misunderstood what Saffron Sugar was saying! She wasn't saying ANYTHING about the two Henrys being alike in personality, as you erroneously assumed. She was merely saying that the CUSTOM was that the FIRST BORN child would take the name of his father! (Because, after all, you didn't know if there was going to be a second son!) So quit insulting people when it is actually you who don't understand what the hell is going on!

[@tsarina24honolulu87]

@@Unknown17 is this your other account ? Get over it!

[@Unknown17]

@@tsarina24honolulu87 Sorry, I normally get over fools faster than this.

[@Bufoferrata]

Henry VIII was a monster on par with Ivan the Terrible and Vlad III Dracula. The population of England in 1500 was about 3 million people, and he killed 70-80,000 people. For comparison, the number of people living in the UK in 1950 was 50 million, so if Henry had done his thing in the mid 20th Century, he'd have had a body count north of one million victims. He wasn't Stalin, but he was one of history's great butchers. A lot of jewels, cloth of gold, ermine and velvet and this obese and cruel tyrant becomes the stuff of historical romances, film dramas and soapy TV series. Talk about style over substance. Weird.

[@warrenmurray8811]

I think the presumption "what if" doesn't go very far. Arthur married Catherine of Aragon, who, we know, wasn't very fertile. England and the Tudors would still have faced a succession crisis, or, at the very least might have seen the Crown pass to Henry and his heirs if Arthur and Catherine had only 1 daughter who had no children of her own. Similarly, on this scenario the outlook isn't very different. Despite several wives and mistresses, Henry didn't produce many children, which is why even the alternative history, still puts the Tudors on a pathway to a succession crisis, akin to what happend to the Valois in France. It's less likely that the church in England would have split from Rome in the way it did. But England still would have the experienced religious conflicts that arose in Scotland, France and the rest of Europe. So, even though Henry's reign saw thousands executed, it's reasonable to argue that as many, if not more, would have died if Arthur had succeeded Henry VII.

[@eulalianiedzielska2392]

Was not very fertile? She got pregnant very often...

[@warrenmurray8811]

@@eulalianiedzielska2392 she fell pregnant six times. That's not v many compared with Queen Anne (Stuart). Do you agree / disagree with my main contention that the Tudors would still have faced a succession crisis?

[@sarahmcmahon1800]

It’s likely Henry wasn’t very fertile, not Catherine

[@mrsmerily]

@@sarahmcmahon1800 Oh he was kind of fertail when he was young and actually produced at least 6 boys, so in sense even having only girls was not his problem. The problem with Cathrine was that she was not that fertail, but even that was not real issue... she could not carry out lot of pregnancies and that would not have changed with the partner. The above comment is the truest... also we would not have the rein of Elisabeth I without Henry who in his mind was doing everything to stop the line dieing out and not leave the throne to a women.... but three women were at the throne after his son died. Great irony.

[@ABerCul]

I just do NOT believe that the newly Weds did NOT conssimate their marriage.

[@ptolemyglenn79]

Seeing you weren't in the bedroom...

[@myrnaskogland1268]

It depends on how ignorant both were about sex and intercourse. Catherine would have had no clue, but perhaps Arthur had some idea or maybe not. That is a question never to be answered. They did not really know each other well, but I would suspect that some messing around perhaps not intercourse was happening.... You are finally alone, it's cold so you cuddle together for warmth, bodies touching and reacting..... nature does find a way to exploration and pleasure.

[@anthonyrobinson387]

Life is full of what ifs

[@ambreeniram2268]

The climate of Ludlow castle didn't suit the young prince. It was too humid and wet as comparison to his childhood home. I wonder if he hadn't shifted there, history would have been different.

[@graceamerican3558]

In a video I saw last night - they said it was the 'sweating disease'.

[@janehaylay1152]

While I applad that you didn't mistaken Welsh Marshes for Wales(even documentaries have it wrong so many times!), I have to point that you have two errors in your video. -Miniature in 1:15 labbeled as Arthur Tudor isn't him. The fashion is way after he died and sitter clearly has curly hair, which Arthur didn't have. -Henry VIII didn't execute over 70,000 people. That is just widely spread myth. Unfounded in real records(but found in period rumours across channel). After Pilgrimage of Grace he didn't executed 50,000 men, women and children. But just about 220 men-leaders of the not so peaceful pilgrimage(they besieged castles, murdered and imprisoned people.) Real number of his kills is actually under 500 people(including those monks he left to starve). During 37 years of reign. Which makes his average pretty standard for the timeperiod. Difference is Henry's paranoia at times(and some shady evidence for convinction), and that he executed 2 wives. Otherwise, pretty much standard monarch regarding number of executions. Just numbers of his kills are ridiculously overexagerated, while cruelty and crimes of other monarchs get swept under carpet. ... I agree it most likely was Sweat. It fits that he was dead within just several days and his family was shocked that he was dead so suddenly. End of March he got sick, he died few days later. Catherine being sick also, shouldn't be overlooked(you didn't, but many historians overlook it) for it then excludes many possibilities. Both got sick at same time, both had same disease, one lived one died. It excludes consumption and many other lenghtly diseases which are theorized on internet. And makes me very doubtful about later testimonies of Catherine household during Great Matter. Not only had they testified Arthur was beyond sickly at time of wedding, but also that he was head shorter than Catherine. Which is impossible, because as you said, Arthur was tall for his age. She was short.

[@ds1868]

There are lots of errors in this video and all the other videos of this presenter. She really needs to do her homework properly. I suspect reliance is made on one source material that is clearly not reliable. As it is we cannot be certain of the exact cause of Prince Arthur's death, we simply do not have the definitive medical evidence to pinpoint the exact cause of death. Analysis of the remains may help, but as in all other cases of this type, the current Sovereign of the United Kingdom refuses to allow any exhumations to be done. However the next Sovereign may be more amenable to the idea.

[@janehaylay1152]

@@ds1868 sure, we cannot be 100% correct.but i am afraid not all diseases show on bones(Sweat among them), even if perhaps some future monarchs allowed it. But idk if perhaps if it was for example poison if it would show on bones. Meanwhile we can only speculate using circumstances of his funeral etc. ...and use it, to exclude for example plague, because he had too big funeral for it. By the way, very few people believe me when i point out Henry VIII's kills are overestimated as hell. Its refreshing to finally see somebody.

[@wendychristensen5506]

How could Katherine and Arthur not consummated their marriage as they had a bedding ceremony and spent over a month together at Ludlow? Henry married her based on the assumption she was still chaste.

[@DonaldWheelis-xb1lu]

Why not repair these historical castles they can never be replaced.

[@aquastar4336]

Were all castles painted white back then? I like to try to imagine what these places really looked like in that time.

[@ronaldmessina4229]

Medicine was, in those days, rather primitive…add the fact that human and animal life was not considered important 😮

[@HelenTudor-Douglas]

From reviewing old documents of his illnesses, I'm more convinced Prince Arthur passed away from testicular cancer.

[@Dulcimertunes]

Maybe why Catherine didn’t conceive?

[@ladycharlenegrace8023]

Do tell! Very interested!

[@renatatarnawski5974]

@@Dulcimertunes Supposedly they Never had Sex That's Y she Never Conceived!

[@elizabethmcleod246]

That IS a possibility for sure.

[@glencmac]

The stories i have read of sweating sickness and its rapid onset and death always made me wonder if it was not due ingestion of animal thyroid. Just a thought.

[@fabianagois1021]

Poor sweet and gentle boy. What a king we’d be

[@makenakelly2476]

Poor Arthur , he would make a good king if he lived.

[@stephmill8547]

If. The biggest word in the English language .

[@winnifredforbes1114]

Has anyone figured out what the “sweating sickness” was in modern day terms?

[@gizem.33]

In the series they were trying to heat the boy to sweat more instead of cooling him

[@pagey1950]

Transistory life? Well ahead of his time.

[@christinesentman5437]

Same with Elizabeth I and II

[@dsham5971]

So did King Richard kill the Princes in the tower or was it Arthur’s grandmother Margaret?

[@SyIe12]

👍⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

[@kelleyjoseph3032]

I haven't yet viewed the video. The title is compelling. However, I predict I will get a regurgitation of history not actually related to Arthur's cause of death, followed by a regurgitation of the commonly tossed about theories and NO NEW nor selected theories will be offered. Making the title of the video virtually false. Its common these days.

[@PtolemyJones]

Arthur seems a bad=luck name for a British prince.

[@areiaaphrodite]

I mean, Queen Victoria's son, Prince Arthur didn't do too badly.

[@PtolemyJones]

@@areiaaphrodite I was unaware, but yes, he seems to have quite the exciting and successful life. Perhaps I should amend my comment to say Arthur seems an unlucky name for heirs to the British throne?

[@areiaaphrodite]

@@PtolemyJones that would be more accurate lol

[@susanmccormick6022]

@@PtolemyJones So is Richard & I love that name.

[@judymac2590]

Charles didn't do well either! Lost his head. And then there was Mad George.

[@reppepper]

“having 6 wives of which two of them were executed.” Remove “of them”. It’s redundant. “Which” already refers to them.

[@MamaKittieKat]

I wouldn't be surprised if they did too much bloodletting which would've made him extremely weak and make his chances for recovery slim to none. 🤦‍♀️

[@brianedwards7142]

I'm surprised the cause of death wasn't being a Tudor.

[@elizabethspedding1975]

I think 'what if'.

[@aprilgosa5779]

What was Arthur like people say Henry was good at first so would Arthur have been better we will never know now maybe Catherine and Mary would have been Arthur's and they would have lived happy

[@michellelewis9519]

Arthritis would better king then his brother an husband

[@arawakriesch7297]

Did you forget his sister Mary?

[@wrangelinhabitant161]

He were definitiv the better King as Henry the 8...

[@joninaingolfsdottir3143]

8

[@annefox6552]

Shame it wasn't his younger brother Henry who had died... Henry the Eighth was a Cruel King, who murdered his own Subjects, he also murdered the Monks Nuns and Priest's ..He plundered the monasterys of all their Valuable assets then set fire to them , he did this because he needed their money for his War's... Henry the Eighth never fought any war for his Crown as his father had done, along with many King's of England who fought on the Battlefields to win the right to be King of England... Henry the Eighth Changed England forever..The Monk's kept most of the Valuable documents of the People of England from Centuries ago...This is Why today if Families are doing their Ancestry some will only get as far as the time of Henry the Eighth, because of destruction of all Medieval documents...He didn't Plunder the Monasterys in Ireland so Irish People can go a lot Futher back in Family History than most English People can...

[@judymac2590]

And let's not forget his desecration of Beckett's remains!!

[@brettberry7120]

Well if Arthur had lived, Elizabeth I wouldn't have been made queen and there wouldn't have been an Elizabethen era in England's history.

[@reppepper]

Transitory, not transistory.

[@hankwilliams150]

Fine video but a bit too many views of Ludlow Castle.

[@susanmccormick6022]

How could you say that??!

[@timberwolf5211]

This was very interesting, I love the Tudors. However, it states, or comes across as after six children, (which was actually seven), only Arthur, Margaret and Henry survived into adulthood. But it makes no mention of the Princess Mary Tudor, the younger sister of Henry, whom he named his daughter, (Queen) Mary. (I) Mary Tudor was married off to the King of France, and on his death, Henry sent his good friend Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk to collect his Little sister. Henry had originally promised his sister, that if she would marry the old French king, without making a fuss, then when he died, she could come home, and this time chose her own husband. But Henry being Henry, already had someone in his head, who he could marry his little sister to, despite his promises. So when Charles Brandon came to collect her, Mary managed to persuade him to marry her instead. As you can imagine, Henry was furious with both his sister and her new husband, as they had married without the King's permission. They were sent away from Court for several years, before being forgiven. Princess Mary, Dutchess of Suffolk was the grandmother of the nine day Queen, Lady Jane Grey. (Her father, Thomas Grey, like her mother, was also a direct descendant of Queen Elizabeth Woodville.

[@carausiuscaesar5672]

I think as non king henry would have given in to his natural inclinations and headed up a group of minstrels and troubadours singing and dancing merrily through out the realm.he would have married but once to a buxom serving wench a real English Rose of golden beauty had a horde of children including six stalwart sons and died happily of very olde age.

[@areiaaphrodite]

Not really... He was being prepared to go into the Church while Arthur was heir. (That's why Henry would write books about religion before his excommunication; condemning "heretics" like Martin Luther.) Most likely, he would have been like Wolsey. A high ranking church official (probably Archbishop of Canterbury); chaste in 0ublic but with a secret mistress and illegitimate children, not caring of their gender. Receiving special treatment because his brother was King.

[@shawroberts5149]

If he was indeed suffering from Kells/Mcleod Syndrome as now commonly believed, most likely his last days would have ended exactly as they did. With he a bloated, despotic, irrational bully.

[@graceamerican3558]

Didn't Henry VIII go on to marry Catherine later? Like his first wife? (sorry - I asked before it came to that part... lol)

[@pedanticradiator1491]

Yes he did

[@Landstalker1999]

And that's how they gave birth to Queen Mary. That's why when King Henry later tried to annul their marriage, Catherine's older sister's son (nephew) who was Charles the 5th of Austria (Hapsburg dynasty) threatened to invade England but Catherine told him not to. At the time Charles the 5th of Austria was an Emperor who ruled over the kingdom of Austria, kingdom of Naples, and the kingdom of Spain. So he was a super mega player at the time. If Catherine didn't stop her nephew from invading England, history would've played out very differently.

[@maearcher4721]

Henry VIII didn't execute 72,000 people. Supposedly he had 50,000 killed during Pilgrimage of Grace. It was merely 216 and only one of those was woman, no children at all. 50,000 men, women and children were big overexageration! And it is repeated as fact. All the 'pilgrims' were only about 40,000 in total, that alone should one tell it is untrue. The remaining 12,000 thousand don't stand up to scurity either.

[@shawroberts5149]

I'm confused! Immediately it comes to mind that he executed 2 of his wives and his kinswoman, Margaret Pole. Women.

[@maearcher4721]

@@shawroberts5149 He was still a tyrant. I am just pointing out when it comes to Pilgrimage of Grace he wasn't as big of tyrant as he is made to be. Personally i think worst treatment by him got Carthusian monks-that was different level of cruelty.

[@shawroberts5149]

There are a lot of generalisations and sweeping statements in this video and seemingly little consideration to the propagandas of the times and the disparities of contemporary versions of events.

[@SKF358]

Lying in State, not laying in State.

[@laurag7295]

You would not have had Elizabeth l either!

[@nazlsenay7312]

.

[@hogwashmcturnip8930]

Marshes towards Scotland? Did you look at a, map? And who spoke in Latin! This is junior school essay! An insult. His mother was 'Incredibly upset' FFS!

[@kelleyjoseph3032]

Yup. One would expect that someone who selects a video titled "The REAL cause of death of Arthur Tudor" would be someone who KNOWS who Arthur Tudor is and that a biographical lecture could be skipped. Nope. No one gives you a REAL cause of death. They don't even champion one of the theories. Clickbait. Another word for that is LYING.

[@jessicasarahliddell8883]

The main reason why Arthur died young and Henry died without securing the line adequately was the curse.

[@shawroberts5149]

Kells/Mcleod Syndrome is now viewed as a forerunner for both Henry's fertility issues and his foul temperament. Try researching it a little, it makes for fascinating reading...

[@silviagiancontieri4631]

;

[@winnifredforbes1114]

Eight to nine million pounds dowry!!! 😱

[@rosaderivas3376]

Please check your grammar. You say, "If this had happened," NOT if this would have happened.

[@Unknown17]

Never mind that little, inconsequential slip. She said Arthur's life was "transistory" rather than "transitory."

[@marisapaola9010]

Pleurisy?

[@chrisleach8009]

The French Pox like his father perhaps?

[@alancoe1002]

Chris Leach wrong symptoms in both cases. Henry VII almost certainly died of tuberculosis. There was some talk of Henry VIII dying of syphilis, but he was conducting state business up the very day of his death. Not possible with tertiary stage syphilis. Probably complications of diabetes, like his sister Margaret. Peasant diet healthier, I guess.