The Six Wives of Henry VIII by Alison Weir

I bought a few of her books after watching The White Queen on tv ( I love that series). I read The White Queen but couldn’t get into The White Princess or The Lady of the Rivers. Then again I do get obsessed with a subject and then suddenly move on to something else. It’s why I wanted to watch The Spanish Princess; kept meaning to buy the dvd and then found it was on Ch4. Unfortunately I’ve got a terrible memory and also don’t concentrate on what I’m watching so I’ve already forgotten what happened in The Spanish Princess. I didn’t realise there were two series and I think I’d started to lose interest by series two.

MayBee70

Beautyschooldropout

MayBee70

It’s a bit dry isn’t it. There are more on that page that look more interesting. I can listen to In Our Time again thankfully. I usually listen to them at night when I’m trying to get to sleep. She was quite an amazing woman and people forget that she and Henry were happily married for a long time, or that she fought battles…and won. I wonder if there’s a Rest is History about her?

Katherine never fought. Her troops were commanded by Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey later 2nd Duke of Norfolk. She, herself never went further north than Bedfordshire.

Oh no. I thought she was a proper warrior queen!

Her mother Isabel of Castile was on the battlefield as part of the joint effort of the kingdoms of Aragon and Castile, the Reconquista. However she never fought either.

Phillipa Gregory has spent far too long sliding by (IMHO) on her PhD. However, it is in Regency novels* and not history.

I loved her Wildacre novels but her Plantagenet and Tudor novels fall short for me.

Beautyschooldropout

MayBee70

It’s a bit dry isn’t it. There are more on that page that look more interesting. I can listen to In Our Time again thankfully. I usually listen to them at night when I’m trying to get to sleep. She was quite an amazing woman and people forget that she and Henry were happily married for a long time, or that she fought battles…and won. I wonder if there’s a Rest is History about her?

Katherine never fought. Her troops were commanded by Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey later 2nd Duke of Norfolk. She, herself never went further north than Bedfordshire.

Oh no. I thought she was a proper warrior queen!

Flippinheck

Beautyschooldropout

Flippinheck

Alison Weir is a wonderful writer, both fiction and non fiction. I always look forward to her books.
I like Sharon Penman too, though she covers a much earlier period. She writes fiction, though not straying too far from known fact.

While I do find AW's book easy to read, I didn't like the way she treated both AoC's and KP's backstories.

Which is why reading a wide range of books on the subject gives a more rounded view. Re-reading books I read years ago I am often struck by how much views have changed.

Plus historians and archeologists are finding new things all the time. The myth that KP was a serial bride of elderly, frail men while the truth was something rather different.
Her first husband was a similar age to her. Her second was in his late 30's when they married while she was in her early twenties. An age different not uncommon in that era.

Then there was HVIII. Since the Magna Carta , kings couldn't force widows or heiresses marry, so he had to ask to marry her. Of course, she had to agree.

KP's last marriage has often been touted as a "love match" though some historians now think it was more of a power couple match. There was probably some attraction and while Thomas Seymour had tried to marry Mary and Elizabeth earlier, they had both rejected his suit.

KP could have been upset at being left out of the Regency Council for Edward VI. Marrying the king's uncle could possibly be seen as a way of setting up a rival court especially as both Elizabeth and Lady Jane Grey were part of her household.

Gran22boys

I agree. Isn’t there a living descendant of King Richard? If her DNA were taken and the bones dug up and tested then we would know I whether or not the bones are those of the princes

The person whose DNA they used was a descendant of one of his sisters. If you wanted to do that to those bones you would need a female line descendant of one of their sisters or from one of Elizabeth Wydville sisters as maternal mitochondrial is one of the best ways to determine ancestry.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhumation_and_reburial_of_Richard_III_of_England

I agree. Isn’t there a living descendant of King Richard? If her DNA were taken and the bones dug up and tested then we would know I whether or not the bones are those of the princes

pinkprincess

Doodledog

Allira

But miscarriages and still births and deaths of infants and young children was very common back then. Only a minority made it to adulthood.
Yes, it was more common but there is still one common denominator to consider and that was Henry himself and whether the fault was a genetic one.

Yes. As I understand it (ie at a very surface level) Kell Syndrome means that after the first child subsequent babies may live for a while but will be very weak.

I have Rhesus Negative blood, and my husband's is positive, so after my first baby I had to be given antibodies to prevent any others being what used to be known as 'blue babies'. That is entirely different from Kell Syndrome, but it sounds like it follows a similar pattern. Obviously they didn't have the understanding or the medication back then, so they fell back on tradition and blamed the women .

I read of a theory a long time ago that Anne Boleyn was thought to be Rhesus Negative, which was the cause of only her first child, Elizabeth I surviving. Her subsequent babies had been attacked by her antibodies and either were stillborn or miscarried.

Interesting. I do remember when that theory was discovered and a treatment found in the 1960s.

Beautyschooldropout

Flippinheck

Alison Weir is a wonderful writer, both fiction and non fiction. I always look forward to her books.
I like Sharon Penman too, though she covers a much earlier period. She writes fiction, though not straying too far from known fact.

While I do find AW's book easy to read, I didn't like the way she treated both AoC's and KP's backstories.

Which is why reading a wide range of books on the subject gives a more rounded view. Re-reading books I read years ago I am often struck by how much views have changed.

Flippinheck

Alison Weir is a wonderful writer, both fiction and non fiction. I always look forward to her books.
I like Sharon Penman too, though she covers a much earlier period. She writes fiction, though not straying too far from known fact.

While I do find AW's book easy to read, I didn't like the way she treated both AoC's and KP's backstories.

Doodledog

Allira

But miscarriages and still births and deaths of infants and young children was very common back then. Only a minority made it to adulthood.
Yes, it was more common but there is still one common denominator to consider and that was Henry himself and whether the fault was a genetic one.

Yes. As I understand it (ie at a very surface level) Kell Syndrome means that after the first child subsequent babies may live for a while but will be very weak.

I have Rhesus Negative blood, and my husband's is positive, so after my first baby I had to be given antibodies to prevent any others being what used to be known as 'blue babies'. That is entirely different from Kell Syndrome, but it sounds like it follows a similar pattern. Obviously they didn't have the understanding or the medication back then, so they fell back on tradition and blamed the women .

I read of a theory a long time ago that Anne Boleyn was thought to be Rhesus Negative, which was the cause of only her first child, Elizabeth I surviving. Her subsequent babies had been attacked by her antibodies and either were stillborn or miscarried.

MarieElla

Although Katherine of Aragon was my favourite, I find Anne Boelyn (aka Nan Bullen, by the public ,who hated her) the most fascinating. She played the long game, manipulated Henry and was pivotal in England breaking with Rome.
She was horribly cruel to Katherine and Princess Mary (jealous and insecure because they had Royal blood, I think)
Her downfall brought lot of people a lot of joy!

A lot of people also found it suspicious about the charges. The only letter HVIII wrote to Jane told her to ignore the common folk talking about them.
Long term CoA and Mary supporter Chapuys even wrote to the Emperor that he thought some of the charges were trumped up.

Henry was even more cruel to both Catherine and Mary both before he married Anne and after he married Jane. His persecution of Mary continued until she totally capitulated about her parent's marriage.

MayBee70

It’s a bit dry isn’t it. There are more on that page that look more interesting. I can listen to In Our Time again thankfully. I usually listen to them at night when I’m trying to get to sleep. She was quite an amazing woman and people forget that she and Henry were happily married for a long time, or that she fought battles…and won. I wonder if there’s a Rest is History about her?

Katherine never fought. Her troops were commanded by Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey later 2nd Duke of Norfolk. She, herself never went further north than Bedfordshire.

Allira

^But miscarriages and still births and deaths of infants and young children was very common back then. Only a minority made it to adulthood.^
Yes, it was more common but there is still one common denominator to consider and that was Henry himself and whether the fault was a genetic one.

Yes. As I understand it (ie at a very surface level) Kell Syndrome means that after the first child subsequent babies may live for a while but will be very weak.

I have Rhesus Negative blood, and my husband's is positive, so after my first baby I had to be given antibodies to prevent any others being what used to be known as 'blue babies'. That is entirely different from Kell Syndrome, but it sounds like it follows a similar pattern. Obviously they didn't have the understanding or the medication back then, so they fell back on tradition and blamed the women .

Anne of Cleves is an interesting ex- wife

Yes. Not as high profile as some of the others but she played her part and survived.

This is quite an amusing take on Anne and Henry and probably nearer the truth than some:
historyofwomen.substack.com/p/was-anne-of-cleves-really-too-ugly

Anne of Cleves is an interesting ex- wife. She survived and outlived Henry, who began by detesting her on sight, but after very wisely agreeing to become his beloved sister they developed a friendly relationship,( she also was maintained a friendship with the ill-fated Catherine Howard) and in later years Henry would dine with her at her palace in Richmond, where she kept a goodly table and was supposed to wear a different dress every day.She owned several properties, lived in some style, and attended Mary I's coronation, riding in a chariot with Princess Elizabeth, later Elizabeth 1. She died in 1557 aged 42 and was probably the most content of all the wives, having achieved a life of some comfort and stability out of the spotlight of court life after a terrifying start.

But miscarriages and still births and deaths of infants and young children was very common back then. Only a minority made it to adulthood.
Yes, it was more common but there is still one common denominator to consider and that was Henry himself and whether the fault was a genetic one.

Alison Weir is a wonderful writer, both fiction and non fiction. I always look forward to her books.
I like Sharon Penman too, though she covers a much earlier period. She writes fiction, though not straying too far from known fact.

“The Queen lies in the Cathedral
Under the Arms of Spain…..”

Well worth a visit to Peterborough cathedral to see her tomb with the Spanish flag above it

Mary was not the first baby of Henry and Katherine, just the first (only) one that lived into adulthood.

When Prince Arthur died, the then King - Henry IV, was more concerned at NOT having the return the very large marriage portion that had come with Katherine. Her treatment then was totally down to him - he was always very concerned about the English finances and did built them up to a very large figure.
When Henry came to the throne he delighted in spending that legacy as quickly as possible it seemed. He married Katherine, (which sorted out any problem about returning that dowry), and then had the lavish 'Field of the Cloth of Gold.
Henry had sons, - Henry Fitzroy, Edward and the one by the other Boleyn sister. Anne Boleyn miscarried a boy - who knows how things might have been different for her if she had carried that baby to full term!!!!!

But miscarriages and still births and deaths of infants and young children was very common back then. Only a minority made it to adulthood.

I've read it, and it's absolutely gob-smacking!

Alison wrote it brilliantly, and Katherine was treated appallingly at times.

RIP, great lady.

Although Katherine of Aragon was my favourite, I find Anne Boelyn (aka Nan Bullen, by the public ,who hated her) the most fascinating. She played the long game, manipulated Henry and was pivotal in England breaking with Rome.
She was horribly cruel to Katherine and Princess Mary (jealous and insecure because they had Royal blood, I think)
Her downfall brought lot of people a lot of joy!

keepcalmandcavachon

I believe Katherine and Henry had a son who only live for a few weeks, this was before they had Mary. Had he lived, Henry may not have broken with Rome and we would have stayed a Catholic country. I do love a bit of a 'what if' historical rabbit hole!

Same here keepcalmandcavachon. I wish tests were carried out on the bones of 2 children found under a flight of stairs in the Tower of London. They are widely rumoured to be the missing Princes in the Tower but there is no proof. Our late Queen refused any DNA testing on these bones. I wonder why? Do any GN's know the reason behind her decision?

I believe Katherine and Henry had a son who only live for a few weeks, this was before they had Mary. Had he lived, Henry may not have broken with Rome and we would have stayed a Catholic country. I do love a bit of a 'what if' historical rabbit hole!

I love Tudor history. King Henry VIII makes for fascinating reading. I suppose Anne Boleyn is the name that springs to mind when we think of his 6 wives with Catherine Howard and Catherine Parr lesser known.
I was delighted when the Tudor Heart was bought by the British Museum recently. Jewellery from this time is so rare and this beautiful pendant, given by Henry to Katherine of Aragon, is now on public display. It's on my 'to see' list.

Doodledog

I’m be theory about Henry is that he suffered from Kell Syndrome. People who have it are affected in various ways, including psychotic episodes (which he had) and the inability to have more than one child with any partner. The sex doesn’t matter - sufferers can produce male or female babies, but after the first one maternal antibodies attack foetuses in utero. Catherine had Mary, so subsequent babies died or were miscarried. It was the same with Anne - after Elizabeth she couldn’t carry to term. Jane had Edward. She died soon afterwards, but would not have produced any more children if Henry did have Kell blood.

It’s an interesting theory, but is still unproven beyond doubt. There is evidence that at least one of Henry’s ancestors had the syndrome, which is hereditary, however, so it is a plausible hypothesis, and explains why he went from a fit, rational young man to an obese monster in older age - a situation that is often thought to be the result of a fall from a horse.

That is very interesting, I haven't heard of that condition. I'm another history buff and in the book, 'The other Boleyn girl', Mary Boleyn is said to have two children with Henry, a boy and a girl.