The Tudors Fact Check: Margaret Tudor and Charles Brandon

In Season One of Showtime's series The Tudors, the viewer meets several characters and begins to follow their stories. One of the few characters who is featured throughout the series is Charles Brandon, the Duke of Suffolk. In the first season, Charles and Henry VIII are close friends, sharing adventures, sport, and womanizing together. Then, things take a turn for the scandalous--Charles gets romantically involved with Henry's sister, Margaret.

Here is how the story plays out in the series:

Henry VIII asks Charles Brandon to escort his sister, Margaret, to Portugal to marry the old, decrepit king. Charles protests that his rank isn't high enough to warrant his taking on such an important charge. Henry responds by granting him the title Duke of Suffolk. However, knowing Charles' reputation as a notorious womanizer, Henry warns Charles about getting involved with Margaret. Margaret, on the other hand, isn't thrilled by the idea of being married to the King of Portugal or by being escorted by someone as low-born as Charles. She demands that Henry promise her that should she go through with the marriage, when the King dies, she should be permitted to marry who she chooses.

Charles accompanies Margaret to Portugal. Along the way, they become romantically involved. When they arrive, a terrified Margaret is introduced to the King of Portugal, and she is immediately repulsed by his age and pronounced limp. Regardless, she married the King, and he manages to perform in the nuptial bed. When Charles informs her that the English escort is due to leave, she smothers the King, suffocating him with a pillow. As a result, she returns with the escort, enjoying Charles' company on the way back. Both of them are at a loss as to what to do about their relationship. Charles proposes that they marry.

Charles and Henry's mutual friend, William Compton, breaks the news to Henry, and he is incensed. He banishes Charles and Margaret from court. Under these secluded circumstances, their marriage quickly starts to fall apart. Charles begs Henry for the opportunity to return to court, and, after winning an arm-wrestling match against Henry, he is welcomed back. Margaret returns as well, but, because she disapproves of Henry's relationship with Anne Boelyn, she chooses to spend more time at home in Suffolk. Charles returns to his womanizing ways, growing more and more neglectful of Margaret. Margaret quickly dies of consumption while he is at court.

What's the real story?

Although several sources claim that "Margaret Tudor" in the series is actually a composite of Henry VIII's two real sisters, Mary and Margaret Tudor, I fail to see how there is much of Margaret Tudor in either the story or the character presented in the program. The story is based nearly entirely on the life of Mary Tudor, and certainly with more than a few liberties taken. It may have been that the screenwriters didn't think it made much sense to have two regularly-mentioned characters with the same name, and decided against simply calling the character Mary Tudor (the other Mary Tudor was Henry's daughter by Catherine of Aragon). As far as I can see, the only "composite" of Margaret and Mary Tudor is the fact that Margaret's name is affixed to Mary Tudor's story.

Margaret Tudor was Henry VIII's older sister, born in 1489 and married James IV of Scotland in 1503. She was closely involved in Scottish politics during her lifetime and especially after her husband died in 1513. She married twice more after the king's death, and it is through her that her grandson, James I, had enough of a claim to the English throne that he succeeded Elizabeth I, Henry's last surviving child, known as the Virgin Queen.

Mary Tudor was Henry VIII's younger sister. She was born in 1496 and was rumored to be extremely beautiful. She was originally betrothed to the future Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, due to marry him in 1514, but Henry VIII decided against this match after he succeeded his father as king of England. Henry and Mary were close, and their shared interests meant they spent a lot of time together at court. Henry, interested in cementing a positive relationship with France, arranged a new marriage contract for Mary with Louis XII of France who was, unfortunately, about 34 years older and apparently, not a very attractive prospect. Henry was aware that Mary was attracted to Charles Brandon, the Duke of Suffolk. Charles Brandon was granted the title Duke of Suffolk while Henry was working to encourage a marriage between him and Margaret of Savoy, the governor of the Netherlands. This ennoblement was also in response to Charles' father's involvement in the pivotal battle of Bosworth in 1485 in Henry VII's favor. Mary did, though, ask her brother for the right to marry who she chose after Louis' death, and Henry, eager for her to accept Louis, granted this request.

Louis XII didn't last long, although longer than the King of Portugal did, and Mary certainly didn't directly kill him. They were married for just over 80 days at the end of 1514, and there was some implication that his active, physical involvement with his wife put enough strain on him to hasten his death rather abruptly. Mary was rushed into seclusion after his death to ensure that she was not pregnant with Louis' heir. She was later kept in relative seclusion by succeeding King Francis. Henry dispatched Charles Brandon to bring Mary back to England. Upon his arrival, he learned that Francis was aware of Mary's feelings for Charles, and Mary demanded that Charles marry her then and there. Charles, taken aback by the situation and overwhelmed by emotion, agreed. Charles and Mary married secretly in France. Charles immediately knew this was going to be problematic, so he wrote to Cardinal Wolsey, Henry's chancellor and friend, to ask for help. Wolsey managed to plead Charles' case to Henry successfully, and they were allowed to return to England. They had to pay Henry back Mary's dowry, over a period of time, and beg the king's forgiveness. They were married again, publicly, in May 1515 in England.

Mary was close to Catherine of Aragon, and Charles' working against Catherine and in favor of Henry's divorce proceedings may have put a wedge between the two of them, although this is unclear. Mary and Charles had four children together during the course of their marriage. She exhibited signs of failing health after a bout of the sweating sickness in 1518, and she died, probably from cancer, in 1533. Months later, Charles married his ward and his son's betrothed, Catherine Willoughby.

Verdict

The Tudors gets about a 5 for historical accuracy. "Margaret" Tudor does marry an old king she isn't happy with, although this should have been the king of France. Since the timing of this is everything, and the series starts in the 1520s, it was probably necessary to change the monarch (all of this really happened between 1514 and 1515). She does ask Henry for the right to marry who she chooses later on. However, she had feelings for Charles Brandon long before she married him. The marriage was definitely an illicit one from a political standpoint, and Henry was angry, but not enough to banish them from court in the real history (and not enough to require that Charles arm-wrestle him for the right to return). The real Charles Brandon certainly had a multitude of problems with women, but whether or not this made him a womanizer in real life is a mystery. "Margaret" did disagree with Henry's divorce proceedings against Catherine. However, her death in the program occurs before 1530, and she lasted into the decade another three years. There is also no mention of the Brandons having had any children in the series, which they certainly did. The impression is given that their marriage was a short one, when it actually lasted 18 years. She dies of consumption in the program, but it is more likely that she actually died of cancer.

One of the best points? The story of Charles Brandon and Mary Tudor, whether portrayed on the screen or read as factual history is equally fascinating in either case. It may be a little much to call it a true love story from the historical standpoint, but it was definitely a case of truth being just as entertaining as fiction.

Images:

Henry Cavill as Charles Brandon, the Duke of Suffolk in The Tudors

Gabrielle Anwar as Margaret Tudor in The Tudors

Margaret Tudor by Daniel Mytens c. 1500-1503

Mary Tudor and Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, unknown artist, c. 1516

The Last Queen (Historical Fiction)

Author: C. W. Gortner
Publication Date: 2006
Length: 368 pages
Cost: The list price for the hardcover is $25.00. New copies are available at Amazon for $10.20, and used ones for $4.96, but these are softcovers. The Kindle edition is $8.25.
Where Did I Hear About It: I found this in the library stacks when I was looking for one of the author's more recently published books.

The Backstory

The admirably unconventional subject of this novel is Juana I of Castile, better known as Juana la Loca (Juana or Joanna the Mad). Juana lived a dramatically tragic life during which she was pulled between a variety of different self-interested parties. She is known as "the Mad" for a variety of reasons that seem to be at least somewhat fabricated. It is clear, however, that both her husband and her father were intent upon controlling her in order to control the kingdom of Castile, and, unfortunately for Juana, they were largely successful.

Juana was born in Toledo in November of 1479, the third child of the famous Ferdinand and Isabella (Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabel of Castile). Ferdinand and Isabella were the power-couple of their day--each of them held their respective kingdoms in their own right, and together, they completed the famous Reconquista of Spain, defeating the Moors who had inhabited the majority of the penninsula since the 8th century and initiating the first steps to unifying the country.


It was no surprise that Ferdinand and Isabella were interested in consolidating their position with other monarchs and dukes of similar standing in Europe. One way they accomplished this was through the political marriages of their children, and none would turn out more significant than Juana's marriage to Philip the Fair of Flanders. Philip was the son of Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian I, and destined to be his heir to his extensive realm. At the time, Philip was acknowledged to be the Duke of Flanders when he married Juana in 1496. During the course of their marriage, they had six children, but the marriage was not a happy one. Philip was rather insecure and subsequently power-hungry. He was also regularly unfaithful to Juana, and this didn't go over well.

A series of tragedies transformed Juana from a Spanish Infanta to the heir to the kingdom of Castile. Her brother, her older sister Isabella, and Isabella's young son all died within a few years of each other. Without other brothers or direct male relatives to inherit, Juana became the Castilian heir (her father, Ferdinand, was confined to ruling Aragon after his wife's death). Juana's mother, Isabella, died in 1504, leaving Juana queen of Castile with Philip as her consort. This didn't go over well with her father, Ferdinand. Ferdinand married Germaine de Foix, neice of the French king, in the hopes of having other children who could rule both Castile and Aragon (he was unsuccessful).

It seems that this is the time when claims that Juana was insane start to materialize. Philip announced that he believed that Juana was unable to govern due to her mental state to the Spanish court in 1506. Ferdinand lost a great deal of support from the Castilian court after he embarked on the French marriage, and he was forced to acknowledge Juana and Philip's authority. However, he also signed an agreement with Philip that stated that Juana was unstable and unable to rule, which could have either been an expression of the truth and the need to provide for legitimate government in Juana's stead through Philip or an expression of Philip's insecurity and desperate bid for power. Philip succumbed to typhoid fever in the summer of 1506, leaving only Juana and her claim. In order to further control her, Ferdinand had her confined to a convent in Tordesillas.

After this, Juana was never again directly involved in any events related to Castile. Ferdinand died in 1516 without a male heir. Juana had transformed from his political rival to his successor. Juana was visited by her now adult son, Charles, and she agreed to allow him to rule in her name. He continued her confinement for the rest of her life. It is here that she exhibited symptoms of clinical depression, but this could have easily been caused by her confinement rather than by mental instability. She died there in 1555, only three years before her son, Charles.

Images Reference:

Juana of Castile by Juan de Flandes, c. 1500

Philip of Flanders (Philip the Fair) by the Master of the Magdalen Legend, c. 1500

Isabel I of Castile, painter unknown, c. 1485

What About The Book?

This was a great read, and I highly recommend it. It was a refreshing change from the nearly endless selection of Tudor historical fiction. The novel is composed from Juana's point of view, and I find this to be an interesting choice made by a male author--very rare indeed. Gortner does an admirable job seeing events from Juana's point of view, but his focus is clearly events rather than delving into the depth of feeling that would truly make Juana a three-dimensional character. On the other hand, the events truly make the story--the reader is enthralled, eager to discover what happens next in this exciting, but tragic, narrative.

The author does a good job of casting Juana's character throughout the novel, although her relationship with her parents is a little underdeveloped, and her husband, Philip, had the potential to become a more well-rounded character. Juana's relationships with her mother and father nearly entirely seal her fate, and a greater understanding of these relationships would have made the events that involve these characters more understandable. Her relationship with her mother is woefully underexamined save a few key scenes and letters, and her relationship with her father isn't entirely teased out as fully as it should have been in the latter portion of the novel. In particular, some of her father's actions and decisions at the end of the novel seem out-of-place. In Philip's case, he seems to transform from one exreme to the other without much more than a cursory explanation, and a greater exploration of his character would have made the series of events connected to him appear more realistic.

The events are mostly true, although the author's spin on them from Juana's point of view is mostly--if not entirely--interpretive. The author provides a short Afterward at the end of the novel in which he mentions an assessment of how much of the novel was interpreted and how much of it was based on primary sources. I think he is a little liberal in his claim that so much of it was true and so little of it a sign of literary license--there are several elements in the plot that jump out to readers as "probably interpreted" by the author regardless. For example, Juana and Philip had started living apart by the time Juana was declared the new queen of Castile, but Gortner paints a picture of an abused wife physically and emotionally violated by her husband and nearly literally held as a prisoner in her own house. It is more likely that Juana had moved away from her husband, plunging into a form of cold indifference. I have to give Gortner credit--he did give a list of further reading at the end of his novel, which is something I don't think I have ever seen before in a work of historical fiction.

Gortner has a soft spot for Juana. It is clear that he doesn't believe that she was truly ever mad, and if she developed a form of madness, it was more explicably a form of depression developed after years of conflict with her family, and after years of confinement. There were several rumors that indicated she was mad, and Gortner attempts to explain those events and incidents in the novel in a way to dispel any assumption she wasn't mentally stable. In fact, because of this, it would help to have a general background in Juana's life and why people thought she was insane--and Gortner's suggestions for further reading are probably the best sources.

The novel is extremely enjoyable and a read that is nearly impossible to put down. The story of Juana of Castile is truly evidence that historical truth provides a much more engrossing story than fabricated fiction.

Rating: Between an 8.5 and a 9. It was a fantastic story.
Buy It or Borrow It: Since the softcover is so reasonably priced, it would probably be worthwhile to buy it. If you do, you'll have the list of further reading availble to you. My recommendation is to read the book, then read one or two of the suggestions the author makes, and later, reread the book. Trust me, it is that interesting.

The Time of Terror (Historical Fiction)

Author: Seth Hunter
Publication Date: 2010 in the US (2008 in the UK)
Length: 391 pages
Cost: The list price for the hardcover is $24.95, but you can buy a new hardcover from Amazon for $16.47. The Kindle edition is $9.99, and there is presently no paperback available.
Where Did I Hear About It: I pulled it off of the "New Books" shelf in the library.

The Backstory

The novel is set in 1793, and its central figure is Nicholas Peake, a young ship's commander with an exhaulted father and a none-too-conventional mother. Through a series of events, he is given a new identity (Nicholas Turner, American), a new ship (Speedwell, also American), and a mysterious cargo of tobacco to bring to Le Havre by the British government.

Turner falls in with three important people in Paris, Gilbert Imlay, Mary Wollstonecraft, and Sara Seton. Gilbert and Mary are romantically linked, and Sara, a friend, is the wife of a French aristocrat in exile in Austria. It is through them, particularly Imlay, that Turner is involved in the important events of the day. France is in the midst of the Reign of Terror of Robespierre and his Committee of Public Safety. At this point, no one is safe--countless innocent people fill the available prisons and batch after batch are executed by the guillotine daily. Mary stays out of the action by retiring to her home just outside of the city, and after a while, the reader will not see much of her. Sara, under a different surname, attempts to hide her aristocratic link from the authorities, living in Paris. Imlay is some sort of agent with some kind of plan that isn't clear to either Turner or the reader for most of the book. The only thing Turner and the reader know is that Imlay believes that the Terror has gone far enough and someone needs to end it.

There is lots of action in this novel, all following Turner. Turner meets with action at sea, both natural and with other ships, and he moves from England to France multiple times with new orders from the English, all centering around an attempt to bring down the Revolutionary government. On the inside, it is clear that all is not well in France as dissent is revealed from within, and notable potential victims of the Terror start to mount up, including Thomas Paine of American fame. It is clear to Turner that Imlay is playing some sort of double-game with him as well, and even Turner himself spends some time in prison. When Turner begins to figure out the plot and its purpose, the Terror comes to a head for all characters involved, and not all come out alive.

What About The Book?

This is A GREAT BOOK! Hunter has many things going for him--he knows maritime history well, he knows ships well, and he knows the time period well. This combination helps him write a really great story that keeps the reader guessing until the very end.

Although Hunter knows maritime history and ships' terms, he does not allow that knowledge to bog down the narrative. Even someone with no knowledge of ships can figure out what he's talking about when he discusses a portion of the ship that, say, is damaged in some way. He also knows the events during the Reign of Terror, and he manages to make them part of the novel without "forcing" them in, in an unclear or unrelated way. He puts a story together very well, focusing on the action rather than trying to explain every little detail of every possible event. For example, he jumps between what are clearly important events and many times, will leave out a direct description of what occurs in between those events, alluding to what may have happened in succeeding chapters. This technique works very well--the reader never feels like something was missing or lost, and instead, often feels a sense of relief that he/she doesn't have to plod through less interesting, and unrelated, events to the story.

The only drawback is that outside of the events and the setting, it is hard to picture this as a true historical fiction. It has a modern feel to it--modern in its beliefs, attitudes towards society, and dialogue. All women are pretty well liberated here, which is great from a modern standpoint but completely incorrect in the context of the times. There is a focus on the importance of money and the incorporation of a little too much of modern economic theory into it that provides a very intersting plot line, but is perhaps too much interpreted from today's lens. It is also very simply written with focus on action and dialogue--don't expect any long descriptions here, and for some, that will detract. Otherwise, it keeps the reader interested throughout, and all events are put to a purpose by the author.

Rating: A 9. It was great--a little too quick a read, but enjoyable from beginning to end.
Buy It or Borrow It: With a book like this and a price around $15, you can't go wrong to buy it. However, you won't lose anything by borrowing it, either. I do recommend you do one of those, though, because it is one of the best books I've read in a long time.

Artemis (Historical Fiction)

Author: Julian Stockwin
Publication Date: 2002
Length: 344 Pages
Cost: The original hardcover cost around $27.00, but new paperbacks start just over $10.00 now. There is no Kindle version available at present.
Where Did I Hear About It: I walked around the library looking for maritime historical fiction, and I came across this book.

The Backstory

Artemis is the second in a series of novels centering around Thomas Kydd, a young man impressed into British naval service in the 1790s. Kydd is accompanied by one Nicholas Renzi, a man with a mysterious, but affluent, past. This novel begins with the transfer of Thomas Kydd and Nicholas Renzi from the Duke William to Artemis, where they meet with almost immediate action, spotting a hostile French ship as the novel opens. Artemis is damaged, but victorious, and returns to England for much needed repairs. The crew is hailed as heroes, and for a short time, they remain on shore where Kydd meets his sister, and later, his family. After ironing out details at home, he and Renzi rejoin the Artemis, embarking on a mysterious voyage to India. The rest of the novel centers on the ship and crew's adventures as they all become circumnavigators, visiting China, several notable Islands, and rounding the Straits of Magellan. In the process, Kydd and Renzi meet with multiple challenges, including a young lady that piques Kydd's interest, a visit to China, and help lended to an English astronomer.

At the end, there seems to be promise for Kydd and Renzi in moving up the ranks of sailors. There are currently 11 books in the series, and the premise of the whole is to document Kydd's rise from the lowest-level sailor to the status of admiral. As this is the only book I have read, I am unsure whether the 11th book is the last in the series, or if there will be more to follow.

What About The Book?

Julian Stockwin has a very strong background in maritime history--he knows ship terms from fore to aft, and the novel is peppered with descriptions that would be the envy of the most widely-read scholars in the field. However, the novel suffers from several important shortcomings that are entirely independent of this history.

First, the ship terms will get in the way for anyone who is not well-versed in their meanings. Even more confusing is the dialogue, which is often expressed in a combination of dialect and sailor-speak when it involves the common sailors. There are also several "traditions" and "ship customs" that will make perfect sense to readers "in the know," but their significance is not explained for those of us who lack this knowledge. As a result, the novel takes on the character of having been composed for a specialized audience and not to entice those of us who lack background but abound in curious fascination and the desire for a good story.

The plot is another shortfall, and it is probably the most important. This book is too much a part of a series and not enough a novel in its own right. It is perfectly understandable for there to be loose ends meant to be addressed by future books, but that arguably goes too far and cripples this book irreversibly. In addition, the plot is a little bit too neatly laid out whereby seemingly insurmountable events and forces are circumvented without any consequence to the characters. This makes the action feel very unrealistic, and this tendency becomes so persistent that by the action rounding out the story, you already know everything is going to turn out just fine for everyone of any importance. For example, when Kydd returns to England after the battle with the French ship, he meets up with his sister. She convinces him to return home, against his inclinations, to help his father, whose wig business is failing. In a matter of a few quick chapters, what would be a nearly devastating set of circumstances for most is neatly tied up with a bow so Kydd can return to sea--Renzi conveniently turns up, a "brilliant idea" is formulated to transform wigmaker Dad into schoolmaster, and voila, Kydd makes it back to the ship just in time before it embarks on the voyage that takes up most of the narrative. If this were the only example of an all-too-conveniently laid plot, it wouldn't make as much of a difference, but EVERY conflict or event turns out very similarly without fail.

There is also a tendency for events to occur without much seeming significance to the plot. I suspect the purpose is to introduce the reader to "what happens on ships" but, if the author is intent upon producing a series of books, I am sure he will have (or has had at this point) ample time to put those events to better, more significant, use. At one point, an illness breaks out on board the ship, which is potentially devastating under the circumstances. Renzi, being "book-learned" is put to use as a surgeon, but this has no point at all as he basically does nothing useful to the plot--not even something bad that would be useful to the plot. In addition, although this is an extremely important event in the real-life experience of being at sea, the whole thing is up and done in about 10 pages with the losses to the crew being chalked up as "that's just the way it is." Basically, if this had never happened in the narrative, the reader wouldn't have missed it, so the reader must ask; what is the point? Unfortunately, this is just one example of the reader asking this important question--there are many, many others.

I won't wreck the plot or the end, but I will say that the novel wraps up with another, again pointless, event, leaving the reader to ask; what the hell was that?

Rating: A 2. It's an uncaptivating read that with a combination of the reader asking "huh?" and/or knowing in advance that everything will work out just fine.
Buy It or Borrow It: Don't go near this one. In a world with a 20-novel Patrick O'Brien series available and countless other maritime historical fiction besides, there is no need to pick this series up. There is a reason this series has not received very much attention beyond the hype of the first novel, Kydd. Given the attention to Kydd, however, that novel may be worth a read--but, if it is, you'll be sadly disappointed to continue the series any farther with Artemis as its follow-up.

Anne Boleyn (Joanna Denny Biography)

Author: Joanna Denny
Publication Date: 2004
Length: 327 pages with endnotes and an index
Cost: $26.00 for the hardcover, between $15.00 and $17.00 for the paperback, and on the Kindle for $9.99
Where Did I Hear About It: I actually found this in the library in the biography section.

The Backstory

There has never been a character who has fascinated the imagination and polarized historians more than Anne Boleyn.

Anne was born sometime between 1501 and 1507 to Thomas Boleyn and Lady Elizabeth Howard. The family home was Hever Castle in Kent, and Thomas regularly visited the continent during his career as a diplomat. Anne had two siblings--Mary, believed to be the eldest, and George, who may have been older or younger than Anne depending upon the year of her birth (he was born around 1504). Thomas' familiarity with foreign courts and positive reputation led to an offer made by Archduchess Margaret of Austria to have Anne as a part of her household. In 1514, Anne moved on to France to attend Henry VIII's sister, Mary, as Queen of France. Anne later transferred into the service of the new Queen Claude at the accession of King Francis I. In 1521, Anne's father recalled her to England in the hopes that her marriage to her cousin, James Butler, would end a dispute in the family over the Earldom of Ormonde in Ireland.

When these marriage plans fell through, Anne became more of a fixture in the English court. She made her first recorded appearance there sometime in 1522, and she participated in a pageant, much noted because of her appearance as "Perseverance" in it. She was, supposedly, briefly betrothed to Henry Percy, the future Duke of Northumberland, but a combination of forces (may have) worked against this match, including Henry Percy's father and even Cardinal Wolsey, then Henry VIII's chief advisor.

Anne came to Henry VIII's attention sometime between 1525 and 1526. Anne refused to submit to his advances, which only inflamed his infatuation with her. The result, often termed the King's "Great Matter" dragged on for years. It included Henry's multi-front attack on his marriage to Katherine of Aragon--his attempt to draw the French clergy to his side of the matter, his attempt to persuade the Pope to annul this union, and a trial in a public court in England. The result was Henry's decision to declare himself head of the English church, to sever from Catholicism, and to declare is marriage to Katherine null and void because of her previous marriage to his long-dead older brother, Arthur.

After meeting with Francis I in Calais, Henry and Anne married quietly, somewhat secretly, but with intent to legitimize an increasingly visible pregnancy. The date is generally given as January 25, 1533. On June 1, Anne was crowned and anointed Queen in a way never seen before or since--using the same crown of Edward the Confessor that was used to crown reigning monarchs (which at that point, had all been male--this crown was lost, supposedly during the Commonwealth under Cromwell).

Anne didn't last long as wife or Queen. Her first child, Elizabeth, was certainly a disappointment, but a succession of three other failed pregnancies was enough to parallel his failed marriage to Katherine in Henry's mind. In May 1536, she was arrested, taken to the Tower of London, and accused of adultery with five men, one of whom was her brother. The men were tried first and all found guilty. The verdict a foregone conclusion, Anne was sentenced to death at her own trial. Her alleged partners in crime were executed on May 17, 1536, and she was beheaded by a swordsman from Calais two days later.

On May 14, Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer, declared Henry VIII's marriage to Anne null and void--Elizabeth was a bastard and Henry went on, 11 days later, to marry his third wife, Jane Seymour.

What About The Book?

This book is very readable. Denny explains people, situations, and events very clearly without entangling herself in the details of the history or the sources. The biography covers the whole history of Anne's life, and it puts forth a number of new theories. Most striking is Denny's assertion that Thomas Boleyn was not the grasping, ambitious man without a care for his children that is often portrayed elsewhere. She makes a very convincing case for his having been a very prudent and loving father--a more compelling case than ever was made to the contrary. Denny reveals that Thomas was not in favor of Mary becoming Henry's mistress, and that he may have even recalled her from her service in France because of her licentious reputation there.

What's wrong with this biography? It is one of the most unapolegetically biased histories of anyone or anything I have ever read. Denny has no love for Katherine of Aragon or her daughter, Mary. She views Eustace Chapuys, the Holy Roman ambassador to England with equal scorn. Her theory is that Anne was an ideal paragon of Christian virtue and that she viewed herself, and her elevation to queenship, as her being anointed by God to promote the cause of Protestantism in England. Katherine and Mary just didn't lay down all to pave the way for Denny's heroine, and they are branded as traitors and plotting the death of King Henry.

Anne was clearly debased by her detractors after her death, and the fact that all of the sources available do not paint her in a particularly good light is a symptom of this. Denny is right to question these interpretations of Anne as spiteful, cruel, and ambitious. However, she swings the pendulum too far in trying to rehabilitate her reputation by trying to make a case (a poor case) for her having been all good instead. A lot of evidence to the contrary is famously written out of this biography--for example, Denny gives no time to Anne's arguments with Henry after their marriage, which seem to be a fairly well-known fact. She also refuses to detect any sign that Henry was tiring of Anne going into the third year of their marriage. As a result, Anne's fate appears to come a little too much out of nowhere.

Denny also sees Anne as a full-fledged Protestant--a fully developed version of what a Protestant may be today. This is short sighted. Although Anne clearly was sympathetic to the ideals of Protestantism, including the availability of the Bible in English, Denny forgets that Protestantism was a mere embryo of itself in the 1530s, between 10 and 20 years after Luther's fated nail affixed his premises to the church door. To claim that anyone was a Protestant, foregoing all of the trappings of long-standing, traditional Catholicism, in this period is in error. Denny claims that as much as half of London was Protestant by the time Anne was executed, and she uses this statistic as proof that Anne couldn't possibly have been as disliked by the people as others believe she was. There are too many reasons to enumerate why this is impossible--it just presumes too much.

One very positive thing that comes out of this is an understanding of just how few sources there are that really shed light on who Anne was. The same sources have been picked over and over again, but they must not be particularly revealing--especially if Denny managed to find enough in them to support a number of her very questionable, very two-dimensional theories.

Rating: Sadly, I have to give it a 3. The bias and presumptions that Denny makes in this biography invade the text too far to allow one to gain much by trying to wade through them.
Buy It or Borrow It: Just don't, either way. Although not focusing on her, you'll get more out of David Starkey's Six Wives on Anne than you will get out of this biography.

Wolf Hall (Historical Fiction)

Author: Hilary Mantel
Publication Date: 2009
Length: 532 Pages
Cost: $27.00 for the hardcover
Where Did I Hear About It: A combination of an interview on BBC Radio 3's Nightwaves program and an independent search for recent historical fiction led me to this book.

The Backstory

Thomas Cromwell, mysterious minister to Henry VIII, is the subject of this novel. The reader will see the events of the English court between 1527 and 1535 through his eyes, and through this lens, the reader will be more extensively introduced to a cast of characters often hovering in the background of other Tudor histories and novels. The reader meets Thomas More, Stephen Gardiner, Thomas Cranmer, and Cardinal Wolsey with a more intimate glimpse than ever before. It is Henry VIII, Anne Boleyn, Princess Mary, and Katherine of Aragon who are relegated to the background of the novel, even if the events surrounding them do drive its plot.

The novel begins with an event in Cromwell's youth--an escape from a brutally cruel, drunk father abroad where the reader learns later he becomes acquainted with business. In 1527, Cromwell is in Cardinal Wolsey's service, arguably the most powerful man in England at the time. Between the events surrounding Henry's attempt at divorce from Katherine and the introduction of Anne Boleyn, Wolsey is stripped of power and eventually condemned to die. Cromwell, because of his complex personality and ability to maneuver the court politics of the day, rises rather than falls after this, becoming Henry's chief minister. A growing murmur in the background is the dispute over the administration of the English church--Henry's usurpation of control from the Pope and the beginning of the dissolution of the monasteries under Cromwell's observation. The text is full of references to people and events of the day--even the references to food, gifts, and minor characters are essentially accurate, if not based on the best possible information.

The novel ends in 1535, focusing on the events of that year, including the execution of Thomas More.

What About The Book?

This is probably the most detailed, historically accurate portrait of Tudor England at this time that has been put into novel form. The research is exceptional, and Mantel finds a way to weave even the most insignificant events and people into the narrative. Mantel supplies a list of the different characters in the different parts of the book at the beginning of the novel, which is a help to those who do not know the history.

Unfortunately, this isn't a very compelling read. It took me a very, very long time to finish it, and often, I had to think to pick it up. Better novels draw the reader back to them in ways this one does not. I think the novel suffers from two main problems--a lack of endearing characters and the fact that it is a historian's historical fiction.

The characters aren't particularly interesting people. The choice of Thomas Cromwell is a unique one, and much to be applauded. However, you don't finish the novel feeling like you "know" him any better than you did when you started, and this may have been Mantel's intention. Seeing the events through Cromwell's eyes makes him fade into the background, and constant references to his unknown past, his "shady" character, are many, and do not draw the reader into this largely mysterious figure. Most of the figures that surround Cromwell on his own level feel very interchangeable--Wolsey could be traded for Gardiner or Cranmer, and the reader wouldn't notice the difference. One of the problems is the sheer volume of characters. This is accurate given how many people would have been a part of Cromwell's life, but it doesn't make for easy reading, especially for someone who doesn't know the history well. As a result, you don't get to know anyone at all, and it makes it hard to feel anything for the characters as they experience some of the difficulties of the times.

Mantel is interested in the history, and she writes it without sacrificing it to the action of the novel, which is something nearly everyone who writes anything fictitious about this time period does. I am very impressed by that. However, her focus on the history sacrifices a great deal of character development and description of place, of the setting. Most of the work is dialogue-based, so you don't get a sense of the scene at all, and informed readers can probably fill this void with what they know of the period. You don't even learn where the places most often visited by the main characters are in relation to each other. Because she wants to include all of the important events of the day, I think this leads her to incorporate many more characters than safely make up a novel that is readable to historians and non-historians alike.

The title, Wolf Hall, is an odd one, and this baffles me even to this point. Wolf Hall is the family home of the Seymour family, the family from which Henry VIII's third wife comes. Wolf Hall is referenced only a few times in the whole work, and although Seymours do appear now and again, this is well before their rise with Jane's marriage. There is a key reference at the end--one I won't spoil for those who may read this book--that was probably meant to imply the "future" that the novel doesn't cover, but I really think that this title falls very, very flat and even misleads the reader. When I first picked up the novel, I thought it was going to be about Henry's decision to be rid of Anne, his marriage to Jane, and the birth of his son, Edward. The book covers the period before this is even a thought, and I was surprised by that--I am sure I am not the only one who would be.

Rating: This is tough--as a novel, I'd probably give it a 6, but as a historical fiction that is actually historical, it gets a 9.
Buy It or Borrow It: Borrow it--given how much hype it has had, it will definitely be available somewhere accessible for you. However, if it starts to bore you, you may want to put it down rather than wait for the action to draw you back in because it won't. There is A LOT to admire here in the history and in fleshing out at least some of Cromwell, so it is more than worth a try.

History Fact Check: The Tudors Season 1

Program Review

Just in case you missed the endless hype over the last few years, The Tudors is a series, featured on the Showtime movie network, that is based (loosely) on the life of Henry VIII. It has been marketed as Showtime's attempt to compete with HBO's home-grown programming, complete with that historic feel created so brilliantly by the BBC and Masterpiece Theater. The show has run for four seasons, completing its fourth and final season this past spring.

No one is going to claim this is historically accurate, not even the series creator, Michael Hirst. If there is ever a choice between historical accuracy and soap opera-like drama, I'm sure you know where the decision fell. Overall, the series is extremely interesting, even to the strictest of historians (like myself). However, it does have its drawbacks--the series stays true to the changing cast of characters surrounding Henry throughout his reign to the point that the only constant characters are Henry (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) and Charles Brandon, the Duke of Suffolk (Henry Cavill). If you don't like their characters or absolutely love someone else that gets absented, you're out of luck. For example, the first season incorporates the incomparable talents of Sam Neill (Cardinal Wolsey) and Jeremy Northam (Thomas More), but anyone who knows the history is aware from the first episode that they will not stay with the series for its duration. The length of time certain characters remain in Henry's life works against the series in the opposite way as well. In a program about a man with six wives, you already know that Catherine of Aragon (Maria Doyle Kennedy) and Anne Boleyn (Natalie Dormer) will meet their ends before long, but since they remain with the series through the second season, viewers will miss them when the series enters its third.

What's the History?

Season one roughly focuses on most of the 1520s. Henry VIII is married to Catherine of Aragon and has been for "a while," although this period of time is never defined. It is clear that the product of their union is a single daughter, Mary, and that Henry is dissatisfied with this. Of course, there is a lot of womanizing involved in this, mostly focusing on Henry and his friend, Charles Brandon, who Henry creates Duke of Suffolk. Henry is advertised as being "25," but having been born in 1491, he would have been 29 in 1520.

A few things occur that encourage Henry to run headlong toward divorce with Catherine. First, his mistress, Elizabeth Blunt, has a son, Henry Fitzroy, who dies around the age of five or six. There is some implication that Henry considered designating Fitzroy his heir, given he was his only male child. Henry nearly drowns at one point, forcing him to reconsider his reckless lifestyle and lack of a male heir by Catherine. Then, of course, enter Anne Boleyn, beautiful and captivating, and motivated by her grasping family to enthrall the king beyond becoming one of his string of cast-off and soon forgotten mistresses. At the end of the first season, Henry is pursuing a divorce with Catherine through Cardinal Wolsey, desperate to marry Anne.

History Fact Check

The Duke of Buckingham



Edward Stafford, 3rd Duke of Buckingham, is played by Steven Waddington in the first season of the series. He is frustrated, being a claimant from the previous Plantagenet dynasty, overthrown by Henry's father. Although he doesn't last long in the series, a few things happen to him--first, his daughter is "corrupted" by Charles Brandon, Buckingham discovering them having sex; second, he hates Cardinal Wolsey, "accidentally" dropping a washing tray of water on him; and third, he is executed by Henry for plotting his assassination.

Indeed, there was an Edward Stafford, 3rd Duke of Buckingham, and his appearance in the series around 1520 is accurate. He was a claimant to the throne, but the reference to Edward II is an odd one--Edward II was not a well-liked king. Edward II was overthrown by his wife, Isabella of France, who was subsequently overthrown by her son, Edward III. The Wars of the Roses was based on rival claims to the throne by different descendants of Edward III, so a reference to him would have been more appropriate.

The 3rd Duke of Buckingham was descended from the youngest son of Edward III--Thomas of Woodstock. His daughter, Anne of Gloucester, had a son, Humphrey Stafford, who was created the 1st Duke of Buckingham in 1444. The Buckinghams supported the Yorkist claim to the throne, represented by Edward IV and his children, and the notorious Richard III, Edward's brother.

Although Richard III died in battle at Bosworth Field in 1485, defeated by Henry VII, this didn't mean that the Plantagenet line was entirely extinguished. Edward III had a big and unusual problem in the size of his family--he had many children and nearly all of them survived to adulthood and had children of their own, and to further complicate matters, subsequent generations of his family intermarried, so certain individuals actually had claims to the throne through more than one of Edward III's children. Henry VII knew he was essentially considered a usurper, not only by his own people, but also by monarchs abroad. Henry VIII had an easier time--his father's rule was successful in that it calmed the hostilities that had been fueling the Wars of the Roses, and the English were more than happy to bid farewell to the days of instability and war. By Henry VIII, most had reconciled themselves to a new dynasty as it continued to bring these essential elements to the table.

The supposed liaison between Charles Brandon and Buckingham's daughter is a rewriting of a short-lived relationship between Henry VIII and Buckingham's sister, Lady Anne Hastings. Their sister, Elizabeth, reported this affair to Buckingham in 1510, too early for the series, who immediately told her husband. Her husband, in turn, withdrew her from court and threw her temporarily into a convent. Henry blamed Elizabeth for the loss of his mistress, and he dismissed her from court. This angered Catherine of Aragon, and Henry and Catherine had a very public falling-out as a result.

The 3rd Duke of Buckingham was executed, but not for plotting against Henry in a direct way. The Duke's son, Henry, Lord Stafford, married Ursula Pole, and this presented Henry VIII with a problem. The Poles, like the Staffords, were descended from the Plantagenet line. Ursula's mother, Margaret Pole, was the daughter of the Duke of Clarence, brother to both Edward IV and Richard III. This marriage united both of these pre-existing claims to the throne. This only added to the fact that Buckingham had interfered in Henry VIII's liaison with his sister and his apparent dislike of Henry VIII's favorites, in particular, Cardinal Wolsey. In May 1521, Henry VIII had Buckingham arrested, accused of "witchcraft," attempting by these means to discover how long Henry VIII would live. He was condemned and executed four days later--much to the dismay of Catherine, who was close to his family. The people of London rioted in reaction, but he wouldn't be the last of Henry's victims.

Henry Fitzroy



The series opens with the introduction of Henry VIII's latest mistress, Elizabeth Blunt. She approaches Cardinal Wolsey, explaining to him that she is pregnant with the king's child, and Wolsey makes arrangements for her to leave court in an appropriate fashion. Matters are further complicated by Catherine of Aragon who tearfully confides in Elizabeth regarding her troubled relationship with the king and her inability to have his children.

Elizabeth has a healthy son, who she names Henry. Henry VIII acknowledges that this is indeed his son, and is encouraged by his safe delivery and healthy state. He confers several titles on him later, prompting Catherine to question whether Henry intends to make Fitzroy his heir over her daughter, Mary. Fitzroy dies suddenly, between the ages of five or six, in a personal household provided by the king.



Henry VIII indeed had an illegitimate son he acknowledged named Henry Fitzroy. His mother was Elizabeth Blount, the daughter of a minor noble, who served Catherine of Aragon as one of her ladies in waiting. She was supposedly one of his longer-term mistresses, beginning an affair with him as a teenager. "Bessie" Blount was not married at the time of her affair with Henry, and this diverts from the series (the series shows a young woman in her mid-twenties who is married). In 1519, somewhat before the series is supposed to begin, she gave birth to Henry, called "Fitzroy" in acknowledgement of his parentage (Fitzroy translates to "son of the king"). Her affair with the king supposedly ended after this, and in the series, she is very distraught by his apparent lack of interest in her. In 1522, she married Gilbert Tailboys, whose family was supported by Cardinal Wolsey and who was probably chosen for Bessie as a suitable husband after her affair with the king concluded.

Henry Fitzroy was indeed given several titles, including Earl of Nottingham, Duke of Richmond, Duke of Somerset, but the most telling was his affirmed place as Warden of the Marches toward Scotland. This basically entitled him to govern the north of England. This was a big deal--the only comparable position was given to his daughter by Catherine, Mary, who was sent to the Welsh Marches in the fashion of all those previously given the title "Prince of Wales." Not surprisingly, many people thought this was a sign that perhaps Henry would acknowledge Fitzroy as his heir. However, Henry was indeed aware that setting an illegitimate child on the throne could potentially provoke civil war in favor of any of the remaining Plantagenet claimants to the throne or in favor of his daughter's birthright, so if he ever considered this course of action at all, it was short-lived at best.

Fitzroy did not die as a young child. He was married in 1533 to Lady Mary Howard, daughter of the Duke of Norfolk and member of the Boleyn faction at court, then in favor with the king. However, Fitzroy was sickly, dying of consumption in 1536 without any children.

The end of Cardinal Wolsey



Cardinal Wolsey is introduced in the series as Henry's most trusted advisor. He is clearly looking for advancement, and is willing to sacrifice his moral well-being to do so, which is in direct contrast to Thomas More. He is charged with the task of getting a divorce for Henry VIII so he can marry Anne Boleyn. Since the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, successfully invaded and occupied Italy, the Pope was in his control, and being Catherine's nephew, a divorce would be next to impossible to grant. Wolsey sets up several means to examine the matter, including a local examination with English churchmen, a trial presided by Cardinal Campeggio from the Vatican, and an attempt to solicit the support of the French clergy in favor of his being able to administrate on the matter himself. Through all of his varying successes on the matter, Thomas Boleyn, the Duke of Norfolk, and the Duke of Suffolk conspire to bring him down. Unable to achieve the divorce, Henry strips Wolsey of his titles and authority, sending him to York to live out the remainder of his days in obscurity. Some of his double-dealing is discovered and reported to the king, upon which Wolsey is dragged from York back to London and imprisoned. Presumably while a comedy satirizes Wolsey's life, Wolsey takes his own life in prison.

Cardinal Wolsey climbed up the ranks to become Henry VIII's Lord Chancellor, coming from somewhat unclear but perhaps modest origins. He was the Archbishop of York, but after becoming a cardinal of the Catholic Church, he had precedence over the Archbishop of Canterbury, traditionally the chief churchman in England. Wolsey made a number of enemies while he was in favor, and in addition, he was unable to firmly deliver the divorce from Catherine that Henry so desired. Cardinal Campeggio, sent by the Vatican to preside over the proceedings to decide the validity of Henry VIII's marriage to Catherine, decided that the trial would need to be heard by the Pope himself in Italy rather than decided in England--probably with the Pope's encouragement. Anne and her family managed to convince Henry that this was a sign that Wolsey was deliberately slowing the proceedings. As a result, he was stripped of his offices, but he was allowed to remain the Archbishop of York and ordered to return to his see.

Wolsey's main problem was his addiction to power. He had held it, in increasing increments, for many years, and he was unable to view his fall from it as his having gotten off very easy. Anne and her family were aware that as long as Wolsey was around and kicking, he could return to power, and if he did, it was very likely he would work against them. In the meantime, Wolsey offered his services to Chapuys, Charles V's ambassador to England, and to di Passano, Francis I's (of France) ambassador to England. He seemed to be advising them on how best to work against Henry, and this was dangerously close to treason. Henry was, at first, reluctant to proceed against Wolsey, but a coded letter intercepted from Wolsey to the French ambassador in 1530 sealed the deal. On November 5, Walter Walsh, Groom of the Privy Chamber, and Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland, arrested Wolsey for high treason. He began the long progress to London, but he never made it--he died on November 29, 1530 in Leicester. He addressed a letter to Henry VIII, warning him against his divorce proceedings and the coming threat of Lutheranism. Although neither Anne Boleyn nor her family were mentioned, his hatred of them was certainly implied.

Verdict

Season 1 lacks a lot of historical content, compromises history for drama, and simplifies many issues and personalities for the sake of translating history to the TV screen, but the program is still enjoyable to watch. One thing is certainly done very, very well--each program ends on a note that drives the viewer to see the next episode as soon as possible to discover what will happen. That is quite an achievement.

However, I do not recommend ANYONE watch The Tudors in the hopes of learning the history outside of the book. Tudor history is extremely popular, and there are many historians who cover it admirably in very well-written books.

Want to learn more? Here are some suggestions:

Most books on the Wars of the Roses are good, so type it in on the subject line in the library catalogue and see what comes up.

The end of the Plantagenets:

Richard III by Paul Murray Kendall. Probably the most iconic biography of the ill-fated king. If you want to learn about the discrepancies between how we perceive Richard III (see Shakespeare's Richard III if you need to read up on exactly what I mean by that), Josephine Tey's The Daughter of Time explores these, but is certainly biased towards clearing his character.

The early Tudors:

The Making of the Tudor Dynasty by Ralph A. Griffiths and Roger S. Thomas fully explains the origins of the Tudors, and is a short, quick read.

Henry VII of the Yale English Monarchs series by S. B. Chrimes is a little dry, like most of the series, but is a very, very good reference for Henry VIII's father.

Catherine of Aragon by Garrett Mattingly is the only biography of Catherine out there that I am aware of. It was first published in 1941 and reprinted in 1990, but will probably be hard to find. However, it is very comprehensive and actually explores many things that other historians gloss over in their general histories about Henry VIII and his wives. If you can find it, read it.