The Sickly Stuarts: The Medical Downfall of a Dynasty

by Frederick Holmes

Frederick Holmes, historian and physician, uses the post-mortem examinations of the Stuarts, original papers of the royal physicians and other primary sources to reevaluate the balance between the monarchy and parliament. From James I, who suffered from dementia, through to the deaths of Charles II from mercury poisoning and Mary II from haemorrhagic smallpox, the Stuarts' medical history endangered their hold on the throne. Three of the six reigning Stuarts died without heirs apparent; the most tragic case being that of the last Stuart, Queen Anne. Despite seventeen pregnancies none of her children reached adulthood. In the absence of a strong dynasty the rise of parliament is shown to have been inevitable. If it were not for the physical frailty of the Stuarts, the course of British history might well have been very different.

Offering a unique perspective on this key dynasty, The Sickly Stuarts is richly detailed and will interest all those who are intrigued by British royalty, medical history or early modern British history.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Historical, British Literature

256 pages, Hardcover

First published October 25, 2003

Reviews

[Jan-Maat]

The title of this book is misleading. Most of these Stuart monarchs were sickly on their deathbeds, but few are then, I think, at their best. During their lives, as far as I can tell from this book, they seemed to be ok. Like the health of the Stuarts this book is also ok.

On the downside it only looks at the Stuarts from the reign of James VI and I onwards and its not a book for the overly squeamish. If on the other hand you've no problem following autopsy reports as they root around the bowels of dead royalty then this is a mildly entertaining book with one serious message: that in an age when monarchs ruled as well as reigned their personal incapacities could have political consequences.

Notable here are the series of mini-strokes that in Holmes' opinion severely diminished James' mental capacity in the last years of his life and the Lupus that he believes affected Queen Anne. As a consequence of this of Anne's seventeen pregnancies in seventeen years only one son survived until the age of eleven, two children died at slightly over a year, two died within days of their births, one child was stillborn and the rest miscarried - some old enough to determine their sex.

Of the remaining Stuarts, Mary died of smallpox, Charles II poisoned himself with mercury - this a by-product of his alchemy hobby, James II had his nosebleeds, Charles I was decapitated, here Holmes claims this was a result of his delusional state of mind but it seems a stretch except in so as monarchy is always a delusional mind state shared by a community, and Prince Henry died of typhoid fever - possibly the result of eating raw oysters and swimming in the Thames not both at the same time, an activity which tends to result in drowning instead rather than porphyria as per the MacAlpine thesis see George III And The Mad Business.

A thoroughly middle of the road book, with a slight tendency to be judgemental, a keenness for alteration, and jokes not exactly funny already on the first telling, this is a readable and inoffensive book ideal for all those who have ever been curious about precisely how gravelly the urine of dead monarchs was.

The author is a Doctor who turned to history as a hobby - as it is often safer than alchemy - in later life. There are some mini-biographies of some of the doctors who attended on the royals, but there is not a great deal of detail about seventeenth century medicine and a mere single reference to the use of rhubarb as a laxative a moving account of which given in Rhubarb: The Wondrous Drug .

[Jamie Collins]

This is interesting. The author is a medical doctor who went back and got a Master’s degree in History, and he wrote his thesis on the theory that Parliament’s rise in power during the 17th century was largely due to the health problems and “medical misadventures” of the Stuart monarchs. This book is an expansion of that thesis - and a little bloated, with a lot of repetition.

There’s a brief biographical sketch of the doctors who attended the Stuarts. I must say that this author has more positive things to say about 17th century doctors than most historians I have read, who only speak of them hastening, if not outright causing, the deaths of their patients with brutal treatments such as bleeding and purging.

The book addresses each significant Stuart, first relating their medical issues as described by contemporary doctors, especially their autopsy reports. Then the author gives his modern medical diagnosis, offered with varying degrees of certainty. He explains how their various diseases and illnesses affected their ability to rule effectively and carry on the dynasty, and how parliament “stepped up to fill the gap” when a Stuart was left infirm or incompetent.

The author’s summary:
“Vascular dementia in James I and then disabling delusion in Charles I [the author admits this is a stretch] brought the Stuart dynasty to its first, sudden end in 1649, with the surgical death of Charles I by beheading. The mild hereditary neuromuscular disease that afflicted James and Charles proved to be of little importance to them and did not affect subsequent Stuarts. Prince Henry Frederick [James I’s oldest son], who would have made a strong Stuart monarch, died of typhoid fever in 1612 without ever seeing the throne of England. Charles II’s untimely death from acute mercury poisoning [he dabbled in alchemy] left James II with a throne he was incapable of holding. His inability to manage events as simple as the birth and acceptance of his Roman Catholic male heir led to his abandonment of the throne and the second ending of the Stuart dynasty in 1688. The death of Mary II from acute haemorrhagic smallpox gave the Stuart throne to her husband, William of Orange, in 1694, ending the dynasty for a third time. Mary’s sister, Queen Anne, succeeded William as monarch upon his death. She had seventeen pregnancies but the only child to survive infancy, William, Duke of Gloucester, died of pneumonia at eleven years of age. Lupus erythematosus and the antiphospholipid antibody syndrome physically weakened Queen Anne, the last English Stuart. Having severely compromised her ability to produce an heir, lupus erythematosus took her life in 1714, ending the Stuart dynasty for a fourth and final time. ...There was no important hereditary disease in this family nor was there any single disease that exacted significant mortality, except for smallpox, which killed one reigning monarch, a princess royal and one prince second in line to the throne.”

[Krystelle (based on the novel by Stephen King)]

An interesting book as to the medical maladies of the Stuart era, it provides an interesting diversion. However, it does tend towards perhaps meandering a bit too much with the subject matter. There's a lot here to be learnt that was condensed but also seems somewhat irrelevant to the medical scope of this book. I just wish it had given more to the medical facet of the story than anything else, as opposed to dithering in an overly condensed history. Still interesting- but just a little too overborne.

[Bev]

Frederick Holmes is that rarest of authors, one who combines scholarship and wit with a fluent and readable style.
He has also written the sort of book which causes disharmony in the house because the reader will constantly disturbing others with the words "did you know....?" every other page.
Did you know....Charles II died of mercury poisoning resulting from his alchemy experiments!
This is a fascinating book and I can't recommend it enough.

[Ken Sampson]

[2012] This is an interesting, easy read book for general readers who are neither keen historians or medically qualified. It takes you through the 'Sickly' Stuart Dynasty. Describing briefly the lives of each Monarch and their medical histories, building into a fascinating account of the odds that they faced. I enjoyed it and if you bear in mind its a general reader aimed book you won't be too disappointed. Many reviewers seem 'short-changed' by the lack of historical analysis or the in-depth medical discussion, but this was never the premise. It is well written with only a few clunky sentences and odd words.

All that said - there were some things that grated. Firstly, Holmes starts the 'dynasty' with James VI/I, who was by no means the first Stuart king. Thereby equating the dynasty with those that occupied both Scottish and English thrones. Marginalising multiple Scottish Stuart Monarchs is not very inclusive. Some references possibly underline his confusion (common in Americans) that England and the United Kingdom are synonymous. For those of us whose ancestors lived under the Stuarts and are 100 per cent British, but not English, it is irritating to be written out of history like this. He is also at times very hard on the women - a certain sense of blaming for failure to give birth to babies lurks (I thought) just below the surface. The lack of Mary II's pregnancy might have been related to the rumours of William III's sexuality, but that is not mentioned.

An enjoy romp through history with a different angle, explained with a light touch.

[Sarah Weeks-Jones]

I found this an interesting review of the medical history of the English Stuart monarchs. However, the author really put me off with his inappropriate similies and metaphors. Referring to Monica Lewinsky, an intern taken advantage of by her supervisor, as a "calculating woman" and referring to Queen Anne's eating habits as "like a field hand at harvest time" caused me to question the lens through which the author evaluated his subjects.

[Angie and the Daily Book Dose]

Kind of interesting on the surface. Doctors probably shouldn't write history, and historians should never write medical books.... This book was easy to understand and to follow, but not much was truly learned. The Stuarts, as expected, ultimately all died! There was no common denominator, no overwhelming genetic anomalies, no wonderful discoveries of any kind. I thought there might be a thread running through the book, or some sort of general thesis; but it was more a examination of each individual Stuart and their cause of death.

[imngrer]

I thought this was a rather silly and pointless book.

I have cme to the conclusion that doctors shouldn't write about history. However, I also think historians shouldn't write about medicine.

[Savina King]

This book sheds new light on the porphyrria debate. great read.