Book Review - Anne Boleyn: Fatal Attractions, by G.W Bernard

I've read a lot of Bernard's previous work, including his short articles where he claims that Anne Boleyn probably did commit adultery with at least one of the five men accused alongside her. I didn't find the argument particularly convincing, mostly because the dates on which Anne was meant to have done the dirty deed were not compatible with when she was actually at the royal palaces mentioned, and I have always believed that the poor woman, her brother, and the others, were simply destroyed on a whim by a King who'd become infatuated with yet another mistress. I'd even written an essay on Anne and Henry's relationship whilst studying for my masters, and vowed to defend her to the very last, bitter word. She has always been, ironically along with Katherine of Aragon, one of my heroes. 

So it was with great interest that I opened Bernard's latest book Anne Boleyn: Fatal Attractions, wondering what on earth he'd come up with now to paint Anne as an adulteress. In fact, the first 124 pages of the book are not concerned with Anne's fall, but with other aspects of her life, such as her early relationship with the King, and her religious beliefs. I actually found these parts of the book very well argued, as Bernard consistently shows evidence to prove that it was Henry, not Anne, who held back from full sexual relations during their early relationship, and that it was Henry, not Anne, who drove the divorce proceedings and subsequent religious change. Of course, putting Henry in the driving seat fits neatly with Bernard's much more complicated theory in The King's Reformation, which is that Henry was not manipulated by factions but directed policy himself. So perhaps we should be wary of taking all of his conclusions about Anne's religion etc at face value.

The last part of the book deals exclusively with the theories surrounding Anne's sudden fall and her execution. By this point, funnily enough, I really wanted Bernard to come up with some watertight arguments about why he thinks Anne might have been guilty. However, after refuting the other theories behind her fall - that it was the work of Cromwell, for example - he then goes on to offer no more than the 'might have beens' that he so criticises. He even ends the book by stating that his theory is a 'hunch' and that Anne 'probably' commited adultery (with Henry Norris, for example). We must remember that the sources that survive from the time are fragmentary and, in the case of Anne's fall, it was hardly likely that she would have confessed even if she had been guilty. But there is still nothing to raise Bernard's conclusions above other historical interpretations - the interpretations he was so quick to discard. He places an unreasonable weight on gossip, especially that of the Countess of Worcester, who denounced Anne's morals and way of life. Yet, even if Henry did believe this gossip, instead of destroying Anne because he was bored with her, it does not mean that the gossip was in fact true! 

I still greatly respect Bernard as a historian. I even cornered him whilst he was having his lunch during the Henry VIII conference in 2009 to bombard him with questions about the King's divorce. But I can't help feeling that his ideas about Anne's fall are still barking up the wrong tree, so to speak. Anne was no saint - it's the fact she wasn't that makes her so interesting - but in my opinion there is still no concrete evidence to prove that she was guilty of any of the crimes that she was charged with, and that her death was nothing less than murder.

Book Review - 'The Lady in the Tower: the Fall of Anne Boleyn', by Alison Weir

The Lady in the Tower: the Fall of Anne Boleyn, by Alison Weir

Firstly, I finished this book about three weeks ago now, so I apologise if this review errs on the more 'general' side and doesn't give quotes or page references.

I was attracted to this book because it was not simply another re-telling of the story of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn, but a specifically focussed study of the causes and events surrounding Anne's sudden fall from grace in May 1536. To her credit, Weir sticks firmly to this brief and, while there is some necessary 'filling in' of people's backgrounds etc, this is done only so it might further illuminate what happened during Anne's fall.

Although the title of the volume refers to Anne, I was particularly pleased to come across the section about those men who were executed with her (including her brother). The analysis of possible motives for why it was deemed politic to dispose of them (e.g. Brereton's involvement in Cheshire and Wales) and of the likelihood of some homosexuality on the part of George Boleyn, was extremely interesting and included many new ideas and research.

Weir consistently examines the events of Anne's fall using a variety of sources, such as ambassadorial reports and the accounts - both sympathetic and not - written many years after. These sources are questioned to get as close as one can to what actually happened during Anne's last days. The book does not end with Anne's death, but goes on to discuss ways in which Elizabeth I, her daughter, may have coped with her mother's memory, and how Anne herself has become embedded into popular folklore.

In conclusion, this is an excellently written and researched book and one which I found immensely informative, even though I have read a great deal about Anne already. My only regret is that it was not available earlier this year when I was writing an essay on Anne Boleyn, as it would have been a great help.

Book Review - 'Henry: Virtuous Prince', by David Starkey

Henry: Virtuous Prince by David Starkey

David Starkey is the most well known of historians working on Henry's reign, due to his numerous appearances on television. Virtuous Prince is his first attempt to deal exclusively with Henry himself, and focuses on his childhood and the early years of his reign.

I found the range of the book disappointing, since it ends abruptly in about 1512 without, as I was expecting, discussing the rise of Wolsey and the war and diplomacy before 1520. The chapters on Henry's childhood take up most of the book, which leaves the reader still yearning for a more detailed look at Henry's early reign, a historical period which is often brushed over. Indeed, there is so much written about Henry's father (Henry VII) in Virtuous Prince, that the book almost becomes a biography of this King instead.

The few chapters about the start of the reign focus on Henry's love of jousting, but in a way which seemed to leave so much more to be said. The print in the hardback version of the book is huge, and the book could have been condensed to half its length were it not for this. Starkey's style is that he writes in the same way as he presents on television. The paragraphs are short and sharp, with as much impact as possible drawn from very few words. Unfortunately, this can lead to the presentation of theories as facts, and to some rather odd statements, such as that a recording herald 'says nothing about what either party thought of the other' (p142). In fact, it was not the job of herlads to do this. The tone that comes from the book, then, is one of a sanctimonius 'I know best', where Starkey perhaps feels that so many television programmes on Henry's reign have made him the authority on this subject, and forgets that the real foundation of a good historical work is back-breaking yet thorough research.

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.