Queens married to a psychopath

Guess who might have had a hubby fitting that bill?

Today, I'm revisiting one of the stories I've found most interesting in all the time I've had this blog and it's one from the very early days. It's all about royal psychopaths. The research, from 2013, probably wouldn't hold too many surprises for Queen Anne Boleyn and Queen Catherine Howard.  The two cousins who lost their heads after stealing Henry VIII's heart would most likely agree with the modern expert who believes their shared royal husband to have been a psychopath.

Professor Kevin Dutton looked at ten of the most famous British people of all time and ranked them for psychopathic traits.  Only Henry VIII scored highly enough to be classed as a psychopath.  Professor Dutton ranked people on traits such as persuasiveness, being calm under pressure and physical fearlessness.  And truly dangerous psychopaths needed to score highly when it came to ruthlessness (chopping off two of your wives' heads is always going to up the score for that one) and cold emotional detachment (ditto).  Add in a strong streak of Machiavellian self interest - and we know that Henry's adviser, Thomas Cromwell, spoke highly of The Prince when it was published at the beginning of the 16th century - and hey presto, we have a psychopathic king of England.  If only those six queens had known, they might have thought twice before saying 'I do'.

Was Anne Boleyn the victim of court politics or of a psychopath?



But what about the queens themselves?  Could Anne Boleyn fit the bill herself?  What about some of our other Queen Consorts?   They are several that have been labeled She-Wolves - Isabella of France and Margaret of Anjou most famously - but is that enough to make them psychopathic?

The test that Professor Dutton has applied to the ten super successful Brits he analysed scores them on characteristics including feelings of alienation, carefree spontaneity and rebelliousness as well as the five already mentioned.  Anne, Isabella and Margaret all certainly felt isolated in their day and all were rebels.  Anne went against everything a woman and a commoner should be by refusing to be the king's mistress and trampling over anyone who disagreed.  When she and Henry couldn't get their own way as things stood they both led the charge towards a break away church that would change the way England viewed religion forever.  And Anne was arguably far more fervent about the Protestant faith than her husband ever was.  Meanwhile, Margaret and Isabella were actual physical rebels, leading charges against those who governed their kingdoms in a way they saw unfit.  Margaret was at the head of the House of Lancaster during the bloodiest part of the Wars of the Roses while Isabella's revolt against Edward II led to her husband's murder and a violent battle for power - pretty ruthless by anyone's standards.

As for cold emotional detachment - Margaret was feared by all who knew her and had very few friends.  But Anne's downfall was that she had too many, particularly male, and Isabella lost power herself because of emotional attachments.

Margaret of Anjou - brave warrior queen fighting for her son's rights or undiagnosed psychopath?

But part of the problem analyzing queens rather than kings is that their story is told in different ways.  We know a lot about the men because their every move was counted as important, even if it was driven or dictated by the women around them.  Queens on the whole were relegated to side parts and their mentions in chronicles or later newspaper reports is limited to beauty, grace and what they were wearing.  Anne, Margaret and Isabella perhaps stand out because their roles were so high profile we know much more about them than other queens.

And then there's the area of motivation.  Anne wanted to be Queen of England - Machiavellian and ruthless.  But Isabella was a scorned woman, married as a teenager to a man who needed her prestige as a French princess but who rejected her time and again for lovers and even put them in her place, heaping public humiliation on top of the personal.  Margaret, too, was emotionally isolated, married to a man with serious mental health problems who went into a trance for much of their early life together and who was manipulated by advisers on all sides.  And she wanted to keep the throne in the House of Lancaster - not so much for her frail and detached husband, Henry VI, as for their son, Edward.  As for Anne, did she ever really imagine before May 1536 that her career would end in the way it did?  She was the first Queen to be executed and on trumped up charges.  The fact that Henry turned against the woman for whom he changed his known world is perhaps one of the reasons we can see him as a psychopath.

Professor Dutton argues that many of the traits found in psychopaths can be used in positive ways, providing energy and determination to achieve great things that would otherwise be too daunting to complete.  Certainly Henry changed his country beyond all recognition, shaping it in his own image...and that of Anne as well.  Without her his reign would have been a very different affair.  This most influential of consorts shares much of the credit - should we also share the blame with her too?  Margaret and Isabella had positive impacts as well.  Isabella paved the way for the stabilizing rule of her eldest son, Edward III.  Without her intervention, the anger towards the monarchy might have tipped over into outright conflict before he could attain the throne.

So Henry VIII adds England's only ruling psychopath to his CV but the trait is obviously not genetic - Professor Dutton also ranked that most famous of Queens Regnant, Henry's daughter, Elizabeth, and found she didn't take after Dad when it came to that.

You can learn more at Professor Dutton's website and even take a test to find out if you fit the bill....

http://www.wisdomofpsychopaths.com/

PS I didn't, just out of interest!!