Book Review - 'Henry VIII: Reformer and Tyrant', by Derek Wilson

Henry VIII: Reformer and Tyrant by Derek Wilson

I met the author, Derek Wilson, as we walked across an extremely wet courtyard in Hampton Court on the third day of the conference held there this July to commermerate the 500th anniversary of Henry VIII ascending the throne. Once the day had finished, I was in the gift shop, hiding from the rain, and came across his book. I read it a few weeks ago after finishing my MA.

Firstly, the book was written with a popular audience in mind and thus, from a scholarly perspective, was always going to be slightly lacking in the sheer amount of detail needed to cover such a topic. On the other hand, it is clear that Wilson has done his research and knows the history well, and he manages to pack a lot in to a comparatively small volume. The first several chapters were, for me, especially interesting, as they examined the early part of Henry's reign, which is the subject of my forthcoming PhD.

Whilst I enjoyed the book, the main issue I have with it, is with its title. The use of the word tyrant in reference to Henry VIII has become almost omnipresent. We cannot seem to dicuss him as a ruler or a man without waxing on about how brutal he was. What is lacking in these discussions is a sense of perspective. Henry lived in a brutal age, where Kings and states were easily unravelled and thus there was a constant need for them to stamp out their authority. Let us not also forget that many of the issues central to his reign - the succession, his wives, religion - affected Henry very personally and so, with ultimate power in the hands of the King, these issues were always going to be led by his emotions.

Near the end of his book, Wilson asks 'how justified are we in applying the word tyrant to Henry VIII' (p.348), and then concludes that Henry was no more tyrannical than his contemporaries, and certainly shouldn't merit a word which is also used for figures such as Stalin or Nero. With this in mind, one wonders what the book was meant to accomplish, and we seem to be left with yet another work which portrays Henry as a poorly skilled King who relied heavily on others and who was incapable of taking his country in a coherent direction. However, it is a good starting point for a general overview of the reign if the reader remembers that other interpretations are available.