History should be empirical

http://www.history.com/news/did-blood-cause-henry-viiis-madness-and-reproductive-woes

This article on Henry the eighth is a fascinating read, nobody with any interest in history could deny that. Yet it is undermined by one glaring problem. It is theorising and supposition not fact. It may be factual that Henry's sexual partners were prone to miscarriage. This is recorded and we can reference it. Finding out why however is a very different matter.

To the credit of those involved they had been asking for permission to undertake the relevant DNA tests that would prove or disprove the hypothesis. This is good science. But is it good history to publicise the ideas before any such testing could take place. once the suggestion of an idea is made for some it will stick.

We still don't know however as this article is from 2011 and two year on no permissions have been given and no tests performed. So, we have no definitive proof. Without it we have only unsupported theory. Which should not be given the oxygen of publicity until proven or at least publicly testable in my opinion.

Let's leave history to those who want to investigate it rigorously and in a basis of fact and to those who if they have a theory can and will get it publicly tested before pushing their ideas forward.