Bill1978 said:

Hello good and learned people, just wanting to pick the more experienced brains on this topic. I've developed a slight compulsive need to have a book regarding each important person in the Tudor world of Henry VIII up to James VI/I. Well, people that I find interesting at least lol.

So good people. If you could only recommend one book that details the life of each of Henry's 6 wives. What would be those 6 books?

For most I would not recommend one book. The exception is for Katherine Parr – Susan James’s work on her definitely remains the best. The biography you need to get is James, Kateryn Parr: The Making of a Queen. Avoid James, Catherine Parr: Henry VIII’s Last Love, as this is a watered down version of her major study.

There are of course several Anne Boleyn biographers and whilst most recognise Eric Ives’s study as the best, I would not advise consulting his book alone. Warnicke’s and Bernard’s books, controversial in their respective ways, should also be read. But Ives’s biography is an excellent starting point (and for some the concluding text).

But, again, I don’t think most of the six wives have ‘definitive’ biographies. There are two on Katherine of Aragon that are worth noting – Garrett Mattingly’s book and the recent one by Giles Tremlett. Some consider Mattingly’s book to remain the ‘best’ one. I think it is very outdated and hardly on par with, for example, Ives’s biography of Boleyn. To be honest I don’t consider it to be better than Tremlett’s book. So I suppose it is best to get the Tremlett book for the simple fact that it is far more up-to-date (though the lack of proper references within the text is very bad). Keep an eye out for an upcoming study on Katherine, alongside her sister Juana of Castile, by Julia Fox (author of the Jane Boleyn biography). It may be a good read.

There is not much out there on Jane Seymour. Her queenship was the subject of a PhD thesis by Pamela Gross that was subsequently edited for a book –Jane, the Quene. It is only available at a ludicrous price. Check out major libraries for a copy. I would not recommend the latest offering by Elizabeth Norton – nor indeed any of her books.

Retha Warnicke, The Marrying of Anne Cleves: Royal Protocol in Tudor England, is not a biography per se. However it does cover Anne’s background, her marriage to Henry VIII, and her life after marriage in a more thorough manner than any other text. Definitely get this book.

Finally, there is Lacey Baldwin Smith’s work on Katherine Howard.

Strange. When I first saw this thread, I first interpreted it as what contemporary book(s) would each wife like to read? For example, I can imagine Catherine Howard reading chick lit and fashion magazines.

Nasim said:

---

I found her books to be very poorly researched, written almost in haste, and containing nothing new. They seem to be produced solely to appeal to the current interest in this period, adding nothing to current scholarship. I would recommend avoiding them.

Nasim is correct about Elizabeth Norton's books. I read her bio on Jane Seymour and was disappointed. I learned nothing new. Frankly, Jane never emerged from the information given. I felt it was a rehash of general Tudor history, not an examination of her life or impact. I was hoping for so much more.

I've always loved Starkey's Six Wives book. It's comprehensive, thorough, and well-researched. Don't be put off. Starkey's writing is clear, precise, and succint. The book's large, but I learned so much from it that I forgave the immense read.

I also agree with Nasim about not solely relying on Ives's book alone. Take the time to read other historians theories and interpreations of her life, then judge for yourself. I've read Warnicke. I've yet to read Bernard, but hope to soon.

Nasim, a question about Baldwin Smith's book on Catherine Howard. What is your opinion? A definite read or a pass?

DuchessofBrittany said:

Nasim said:

---

I found her books to be very poorly researched, written almost in haste, and containing nothing new. They seem to be produced solely to appeal to the current interest in this period, adding nothing to current scholarship. I would recommend avoiding them.

---

Nasim is correct about Elizabeth Norton's books. I read her bio on Jane Seymour and was disappointed. I learned nothing new. Frankly, Jane never emerged from the information given. I felt it was a rehash of general Tudor history, not an examination of her life or impact. I was hoping for so much more.
I've always loved Starkey's Six Wives book. It's comprehensive, thorough, and well-researched. Don't be put off. Starkey's writing is clear, precise, and succint. The book's large, but I learned so much from it that I forgave the immense read.

I also agree with Nasim about not solely relying on Ives's book alone. Take the time to read other historians theories and interpreations of her life, then judge for yourself. I've read Warnicke. I've yet to read Bernard, but hope to soon.

Nasim, a question about Baldwin Smith's book on Catherine Howard. What is your opinion? A definite read or a pass?

A minor point, though one which I think illustrates the poor research – is the use of illustrations in Norton’s books. In the Jane Seymour book a number of images appear to have come straight from the NPG Heinz Archive sitter’s box for Jane (the bad quality of the images is indication of this). Yet, as anyone who has looked at the archive’s boxes for the six wives knows, the collection is in serious need of re-examination. It seems like Norton copied them without further research into the findings. So no serious research was done into the portraiture, both contemporary and posthumous, of Jane Seymour.

I have a copy of Smith’s book from the 1960s so I can’t comment on the new edition (which I don’t think comes with any major revisions?) As Louise mentions, Smith is critical of Katherine but it is still a useful text as it explores her life and marriage in a more thorough way than other books do. Though obviously short, I recommend looking at the Oxford DNB’s entry for Katherine (written by Warnicke), as this provides (arguably) a more sympathetic account. The idea that she was a victim, albeit a foolish one, is a prevalent theme:

‘It is possible, however, to put a different interpretation upon Katherine's letter*, that its emotional tone was fuelled less by sexual ardour than by the desperation of a young woman who was seeking to placate an aggressive, dangerous suitor, one who, moreover, as a member of the privy chamber had close contact with the king. The promise she mentioned could have concerned the Dereham affair. Culpeper, it may be suggested, had established some form of threatening control over the queen's life, and although he—as he admitted—was seeking sexual satisfaction with her, Katherine was trying to ensure his silence through a misguided attempt at appeasement. The letter makes it clear that she wished for his presence, but she never refers to him as her ‘lover’ or ‘darling’, and expresses a desire for no more than verbal conversation with him. Far from initiating relationships, Katherine's attitude to Culpeper, as to the other men in her life, the king included, can be seen as essentially passive, reactive to their demands.’

So again, emphasis on Culpepper’s alleged notoriety, especially in his dealings with women.

*The letter to Culpepper.

It's got to be Starkey's Six Wives for me. I don't think he left out a single detail and it became rather addictive after a while!

Nasim said:

---

 

I have a copy of Smith’s book from the 1960s so I can’t comment on the new edition (which I don’t think comes with any major revisions?) As Louise mentions, Smith is critical of Katherine but it is still a useful text as it explores her life and marriage in a more thorough way than other books do. Though obviously short, I recommend looking at the Oxford DNB’s entry for Katherine (written by Warnicke), as this provides (arguably) a more sympathetic account. The idea that she was a victim, albeit a foolish one, is a prevalent theme:

 

‘It is possible, however, to put a different interpretation upon Katherine's letter*, that its emotional tone was fuelled less by sexual ardour than by the desperation of a young woman who was seeking to placate an aggressive, dangerous suitor, one who, moreover, as a member of the privy chamber had close contact with the king. The promise she mentioned could have concerned the Dereham affair. Culpeper, it may be suggested, had established some form of threatening control over the queen's life, and although he—as he admitted—was seeking sexual satisfaction with her, Katherine was trying to ensure his silence through a misguided attempt at appeasement. The letter makes it clear that she wished for his presence, but she never refers to him as her ‘lover’ or ‘darling’, and expresses a desire for no more than verbal conversation with him. Far from initiating relationships, Katherine's attitude to Culpeper, as to the other men in her life, the king included, can be seen as essentially passive, reactive to their demands.’

 

So again, emphasis on Culpepper’s alleged notoriety, especially in his dealings with women.

 

*The letter to Culpepper.

Thanks, Nasim for the comments on Baldwin Smith's book. I shall check it out. You are a great asset to have here, since you can give insight into so many sources.

I think Starkey's Six Wives is good as well. However, I really like Alison Weir's Six Wives! I say, get both and you have all the info you need to start. For Anne, I myself am a huge Eric Ives fan (my copy looks like it got run over by a car).

E said:

I have Antonia Fraser's six wives, Alison Weir's six wives and Starkeys six wives… Just in case either one missed anything!

I have all three as well!

^ I read that years ago, can't say it was absolutely brilliant but was the book that got me more interested in Katherine Parr.  But I think the best book on her is Catherine Parr: Henry VIII's Last Love by Susan James.  I'd love to get her Kateryn Parr: The Making of a Queen as Nasim suggests but can't find it anywhere!