Hi Nathen,

OK, some thoughts/comments on your essay which I thought was well-written and brilliantly researched. The following points are not meant as criticism but are just bits that I don't entirely agree with or where you need to explain in a bit more detail what you mean:-

“Henry’s official reasoning for his attempt to have his marriage annulled by the Pope was due to a previous betrothal of his wife to his dead elder brother, thereby believing himself t be living in Biblical sin. The more likely reason is that after 20 years of trying for a son with wife she had only given birth to one surviving daughter after numerous others died in, during and after childbirth.”

I agree that Henry did have another motive for wanting out of his marriage BUT Henry was deeply religious and had been worrying about the whole Leviticus brother's widow issue for years. He had also been pondering an annulment well before Anne Boleyn caught his eye. The Leviticus issue was very real to Henry and led to him believing that his marriage to C of A was cursed. I think it was more than an excuse or just “official reasoning”.

“Her erratic and allegedly scandalous behaviour as well as the political aspirations of yet more new nobles prompted rumours of Witchcraft and the King aptly annulled the marriage, signed her death warrant and executed her and others for adultery and treason.”

Not sure about this bit. I'm not sure that Anne was erratic or scandalous before her fall and I don't think there were rumours of witchcraft before her fall and she was not accused of being a witch or found guilty of witchcraft.

“Contemporary theory painted her as a treacherous witch, whilst the truth is more likely that she was a willing pawn in the never ending and often fatal ambitions of noble families attempting to gain power of the King for personal greed.”

I don't actually see Anne as a pawn like Catherine Howard, I think the way she held Henry off for so long shows that she was more powerful than a pawn.

“Henry went into a prolonged period of mourning the woman he had elevated into a Madonna-type figure. An over-the-top reaction to a short marriage perhaps, but she became the prototype for perfection in the misty eyes of the King because of the fate of nature that was her giving birth to a male.”

Spot on!, Henry became very sentimental over Jane and I think he only called her his true wife and got buried with her because she gave him the ultimate gift, a son, and then died as a result of it.

“Katherine was a vivacious lady with loose morals for the time, even continuing a love affair during her regency and unashamed to conceal it.”

I think she actually did try to conceal her affair. Jane Boleyn was in charge of arranging secret meetings. K was never regent, do you mean Queen Consort?

“Katherine became the second Queen of her prominent family to be beheaded, although unlike Anne she remained unrepentant to the end.”

I think you need to explain what you mean by that. K wrote Henry a letter begging for mercy and confessing to her past with Dereham etc. She also followed execution convention and confessed that she was a sinner who deserved death etc. It is a myth that she shouted that she died a queen but she'd rather die the wife of Thomas Culpeper.

“Katherine Parr nursed Henry to his death and helped patch up his fractured relationship with all three children, a small mercy that concluded the life of the most infamous married man in history.”

I definitely disagree with that bit. KP didn't nurse him, he had servants to do that for him, and she actually caused him trouble in that she was outspoken about her beliefs and some of his council conspired against her. She did bring the family together and brought H comfort during his last years, but she was far more than a nurse.

Henry had the rebellion sharply and viciously suppressed at the hands of best friend Charles Brandon’s armies and had Aske and his collaborators executed en masse.

Agree with joeyramone here, it was the Duke of Norfolk who was put in charge of suppressing the Pilgrimage of Grace.

Humanist, Renaissance Man and Education sections – great stuff here, some great points.

“After the break from Rome Henry introduced the Tynsdale Bible, the first holy book written in a language other than Latin. The result was that for the first time a nation was, literally, on the same page and singing from the same sheet, bringing together the divided people.”

Do you mean Henry VIII's Great Bible? Henry VIII banned Tyndale's books in 1530. The Great Bible was based on Matthew's Bible, and therefore contained bits translated by Tyndale, but The Great Bible was prepared by Myles Coverdale. The Matthew Bible was used for a time but only as a short-term measure while an authorised English Bible was prepared. I'm also not sure that the new Bible brought together divided people.

As far as the last paragraph is concerned, yes you could say that “For all his faults, by the time he died his actions had left England on the cusp of becoming the world’s greatest superpower” but you could also argue that Henry had ransacked his country (Dissolution of the Monasteries), spent money on palaces for his own pleasure, created deep religious divisions and instability. Your last paragraph could look at those opposing views perhaps?

Anyway, I really enjoyed your essay and, again, the above comments are just that and not criticisms, it's just the teacher coming out in me!