Rating: 
Summary: A new study of a fascinating era, its king, and his women
Review: Listing the 6 wives of Henry VIII and their fates was my childhood equivalent of counting sheep. I don't know why I had this fascination with the 3 Catherines, 2 Annes, and one Jane from such an early age, but I surely wasn't alone. King Henry's eventful matrimonial history has driven writers and historians to delve into the psyche of this charismatic monarch for several centuries. Generally Henry is portrayed as a depraved glutton, seeking only his own pleasures and intent upon changing laws and religions to have his way. In this terrific new study, David Starkey argues that the king was made of simpler stuff, and was seeking happiness, as well as a son and heir. In the process, he made near cult figures of 6 women and changed the way a nation was governed.
Thumbnail sketches of these women and their fates:
Catherine of Aragon - Catholic , deeply religious, no male child in spite of many pregnancies and miscarriages. Henry divorced her (creating the Anglican church in order to do so) to marry wife #2.
Anne Bolyn's greatest contribution was giving birth to Elizabeth I (who went on to be queen of one of England's greatest eras). She was the first queen to lose her head.
Jane Seymour, whom Henry married the day Anne was executed. She gave birth to Edward VI, the long sought male heir, but he proved sickly, as did his mother, who died 12 days after giving birth.
A brief marriage to Anne of Cleves, which ended in anullment. Grateful for her cooperation, Henry granted her several homes and a generous income; she enjoyed an unusually independent lifestyle and often visited court as an honored guest. It's said ale and gambling were her only vices.
Catherine Howard, an adolescent flirt and a beauty, was Henry's ill-fated 5th wife. She made a fool of him when powerful court figures suggested she conceive a child by one of the many young men who sought her favors and pass that child off as Henry's. She lost her head as a result of that game.
Catherine Parr, a shrewd and brilliantly powerful woman who outlived Henry.
Superb in every way.
Rating: 
Summary: Unreadable
Review: My children bought this book for me -- I'm a big reader of English history -- and, despite some reservations (based upon Starkey's sloppy bio of Elizabeth) I did give it a shot. But, it's simply unreadable. First, the writing is just awful. Execrable. Like a really bad pulp novel. Most sections (not just chapters, but sections in a chapter) end with some inane rhetorical question or similar lame attempt to build mystery. Here are some random samples: "But, within a few days, the minister was singing a very different tune." "There was a cloud over Catherine's marriage. But it was no bigger than a man's hand." "And soon she would have vengeance in kind." Da da da DUMMMM. Second, there's supposition and speculation about motives and actions, based seemingly upon how Starkey thinks normal women feel and think and act, as if the actions of these very forceful and determined people weren't enough to speak for themselves. There is absolutely NO context -- as if a 16th century queen, or would-be queen, trying to save her life and sovereignty, would act the way a 21st century suburban person would act. Third, he simply guesses at things!! And admits it! And then he uses his guesses to weave a fantasy of something that may have happened to explain something that did happen. A quick look at p. 419 -- not atypical -- will illustrate this tactic. Starkey sums it up himself by saying "It seems as likely as not." Really? Why? This is a shameful effort by someone who is associated with Cambridge (what were they thinking at that university?) or by anyone who purports to be a serious historian. Even Publishers' Weekly had a hard time finding anything good to say about this book. Save your $$, or go get Allison Weir's or Antonia Frasier's book(s). Better written and much more exciting. Or buy a good novel.
Rating:
Summary: Not scholarly
Review: No, sorry, but this work isn't based on scholarly research
as is suggested by the book's length and copious chapter notes.
The author takes far too much liberty with established facts and well-established theories based on hundreds of years of research by many scholars, and he is far too willing to toss aside all precedent because of his "feelings" or some such ideas.
His theories on the character of Henry's 5th wife, Catherine Howard, are a good example of the author's thinking. It is well established that Catherine had engaged in significant intimacies during her teen-age years when she was living with the Dowager Dutchess of Norfolk, and these meetings and trysts were attested to by her roommates and friends of that time. And, far worse, she met behind closed doors, during late night hours, with at least two men after she was married to King Henry, when everyone in the English-speaking world (as well as most of those in the French-speaking and Spanish-speaking worlds) knew such behavior would be considered treasonable. Of course she was young, and she was encouraged in her misdeeds by
both the 3rd Duke of Norfolk, her uncle, and Lady Rochford, because both of those relatives had their political motives regarding the King.
But her behavior and deeds are well known to historians, and we might have to wonder what prompted the author to take a contrary view. Did he uncover new documents? Make a new translation of original papers?
As to her behavior, he brushes that off by saying it was all due to her "...indiscriminate good nature..." Is that what it's called? Plus, he further dismisses her teen-age sexual
licentiousness by making the bald, unsupported statement: "Many, even most, Tudor girls had similarly murky pasts." But he does cite an "authority" for this view: Chapuys, the Spanish Ambassador to England. He doesn't remind the reader that the Spainard was reporting to the King of Spain, who hated Henry because of Henry's treatment of Catherine of Aragon, who happened to be the Spanish King's aunt.
As far as her later liaisons, which she tried keeping secret from King Henry, this author attributes all that long history to "Victorian prudes." You don't have to be much of a scholar to know that Catherine Howard's misconduct and brazen behavior
was well-documented long before there were any Victorians to write about it.
These examples of the few aspects of this one wife show rather clearly the casual attitude this writer has toward established historical fact, and once such poor scholarship is demonstrated,
it's difficult to take seriously rhe rest of his writing.
Anyone interested in this fascinating period of history will be
better served, and have a more enjoyable time, reading the histories of Alison Weir. She does the proper work, and she has
a very nice understanding of all aspects of that period, and her writing style is most enjoyable.
If your reading time is limited, grab a Weir book first.
Rating: 
Summary: Nice CD
Review: Now that David Starkey is famous, does this mean that neither he nor anyone else has to proof-read his work? All of the "history" in this book could easily be learned in a children's picture book on the subject, and the writing was just abominable. Mixed metaphors, poor grammar, wrong verb tenses, and not a complex sentence to be seen. The research was poor and seems like it was done entierly by reading Antonia Frasier books and taking a class in psychology. He openly admits to making things up and is constantly putting words in his subjects' mouths: "That day in the spring of 1489 at Medina del Campo-- was it, perhaps, Catherine's earliest memory?" Who cares? Does it matter? Why make up an "earliest memory" for a character that you are purporting to write a biography of? I am shocked at the number of positive reviews that this book has recieved. Who is writing them, anyway? I know that ballot-stuffing is a problem on Amazon, but how can anyone get though an 800 page book that reads like a second grade primer? Every third sentence begins with "And," "But," or "Actually," he makes up or mis-uses words on every page, the punctuation is abysmal, and the number of three word sentences is truly apalling. This is an actual example of his writing, not taken out of context: "In the middle of the celebrations, howerver, came terrible news. The Infante Juan was seriously ill. Ferdinand rode furiously back to Valladolid. But Juan died." If you are interested in this subject at all, go straight to the source and check out the Frasier book on the subject. For a slightly easier read, without dumbed-down content, try the Alison Weir. But do not, under any circumstances, buy this book for someone unless you want to purposely insult their intelligence. It is completely unreadable and offers EXTREMELY dubious history.
Rating:
Summary: Probably the most poorly written "history" book ever
Review: Now that David Starkey is famous, does this mean that neither he nor anyone else has to proof-read his work? All of the "history" in this book could easily be learned in a children's picture book on the subject, and the writing was just abominable. Mixed metaphors, poor grammar, wrong verb tenses, and not a complex sentence to be seen. The research was poor and seems like it was done entierly by reading Antonia Frasier books. If you are interested in this subject at all, go straight to the source and check out the Frasier book on the subject. For a slightly easier read, without dumbed-down content, try the Alison Weir. But do not, under any circumstances, buy this book for someone unless you want to purposely insult their intelligence.
Rating:
Summary: The King who altered history
Review: Starkey offers a multi-layered view of the reign of Henry VIII, with much attention to the religious and political aspects of the monarch's struggle, first to wed his brother's widow, then to divorce her when she fails to produce a male heir. While there is great drama in the parade of women Henry marries in his quest for a son, even more fascinating is Starkey's attention to the extremely complex negotiations of statehood. His choice of women illustrates Henry's attempts to satisfy his romantic nature, unusual in royal marriage contracts in the 16th Century, where political considerations govern the rules of attraction. On the one hand, Henry is driven by the desires of his heart, but also intellectually involved with the political ramifications of his decisions. Henry's willful pursuit of Anne Boleyn sets the stage for years of negotiations with various representatives of the Pope, balancing the other nations seeking to affect the outcome of the Pope's decision. Ultimately, Henry breaks with the Church, one of the most significant events in English history. In this great battle of wills, while Henry is willing to engage in the elaborate manners of protocol, he is unwilling to accede to the demands of the Church. Henry will have his way. It is hard to imagine the toll these difficult years would have on the major players, particularly Catherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn. Once Henry cuts himself free of Rome, all the other queens represent his constant quest for a male heir, as well as attaining personal happiness. Whatever small happiness he does achieve with each new queen is successively more short-lived, as he moves inexorably toward old age. The detail is staggering and one can only imagine the unremitting dedication necessary for Henry to reach his ultimate goal. An essential element of the Great Divorce lies in the position of the Church; Henry is caught between two women in a world dictated by religious dogma. Starkey has compiled a remarkable amount of information in this weighty tome, rebuilding the machinations behind the marriage to Catherine of Aragon, which pales in comparison to the energy invested in the Great Divorce. Although Boleyn is one of the architects of the establishment of Protestantism as the state religion, the other queens embody various religious or moral attitudes, especially the radical Ann of Cleves. All in all, this is a fascinating portrait of one of the best known English kings, his desire for happiness and his determination to control his own destiny and that of England. Luan Gaines/2004.
Rating:
Summary: HORRIBLE!!! Don't bother reading this steaming piece of...
Review: Starkey's writing is terrible! First off, he thinks his view is the one, true, right one and all other Tudor biographers got it wrong! He has an annoying habit of making ridiculous assuptions about the personalities of the queens. He puts them into misogynistic,cartoonish categories--he dismisses Jane Seymour as a boring, mousey doormat, then speculates whether that was all really a *calculated act* on her part! I guess that's the only way she could be interesting to him as he seems to relish the conniving/bitchy/vamp portraits he paints of Ann Boleyn and Catherine Howard. Starkey supposes that 16th c. queens reacted to certain situations in a flippant manner as would modern teenagers, or teens on the "O.C." This is so ridiculous. These were patriarchal times and these queens were literally fighting for their lives. I can't believe some people loved this steaming pile of poop! This book is a waste of time and money! It isn't fit to line my bird's cage!
Rating:
Summary: Possibly the definitive biography of Henry VIII's six wives
Review: This massive, but generally entertaining book has finally arrived after growing from a planned modest TV-tie-in to the largest and possibly the best of recent multibiog coverage of Henry VIII's six queens. But this book is not for the weak of wrist or the Tudor history rookie; the biggest audience will probably be those who have already devoured the lives of the wives by Alison Weir and Antonia Fraiser and know their Tudor history. Starkey hasn't uncovered any new, long-lost documents(although a reidentified portrait of probably a young Catherine of Aragon and one of Catherine Parr, formerly id'ed as Lady Jane Grey grace the book's cover and give us a look at both queens as Henry might have first saw them), but goes back to the surviving original and contemporary sources to attempt to strip off as much of the varnish of previous historical interpretations to get as close as possible to the real women who were Henry VIII's consorts.
Rating:
Summary: Immensely readable book
Review: This wonderful easy read gives a good long sketch of each of Henry's wives, with increasingly less detail as time goes on. As with most book on Poor Henry VIII, the women get center stage, ignoring, but not totally, the extraordinary events of the Tudor ruler. Nevertheless this book is sure to be, along with Wier's and Frasers, the staple on the six wives. Catherine of Aragon and he divorce deservedly devour half the book, but important details are given on Parr and Anne of Cleves. This book is not for the expert or the tried English Historian, rather it is a good weekend read of popular history.
Although roundly accused of not writing a `history', only the most snobbish and elitist have been able to condemn this eminently readable account. Those keen on finding grammatical errors may do well to stay away since this book is not of the scholarly nature, but rater reflects the refined English tastes of relaxed fine literature.
The only real downside is that very little context is given to Henry's ambitions or the ambitions of his many powerful councilors. But alas, it is a wonderful history of the Six Wives that makes this all the less necessary.
Seth Frantzman
Rating: 
Summary: Read Between the Presumptuous Lines
Review: While Mr. Starkey has certainly done his homework with the richness of dates and events, he has an exceedingly irritating habit of asking rhetorical questions that add nothing to his historical presentation. He is also given to hyperbole and flagrant supposition that is not supported by his dates or events. This book may be an entertaining read for someone who is curious about Henry VIII and the general political and religious temperament of his court, but the reader should beware of conclusions that are seemingly drawn from the writer's own desire to present a dramatic picture that may not be supported by actual facts and accounts. To truly understand Henry and his wives, the reader should read other accounts of the King as well, and draw his or her own conclusions, rather than having them force-fed by an assumptive author.
|
