Nonfiction Write-up--The Children of Henry VIII by Alison Weir

Grace Irwin
Beginning with the death of King Henry VIII in 1547 and ending with Lady Elizabeth’s accession in 1558, The Children of Henry VIII, by Alison Weir, tells the fascinating nonfiction story of Prince Edward Tudor, son of Henry VIII and Jane Seymour; Lady Jane Dudley, niece of Henry VIII; Lady Mary Tudor, daughter of Henry VIII and Katherine of Aragon; and Lady Elizabeth Tudor, daughter of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn, and their conflicts over power, religion, and succession.

Henry’s will clearly stated who should succeed him. First would be Edward VI and his heirs, then the Lady Mary and her heirs, and then the Lady Elizabeth and her heirs. Edward VI, a ‘staunch Protestant’, succeeded his father to the throne when he was only nine years old. At the age of fifteen, he became sick and died, but members of his council who feared that Mary would return England to Catholicism tried to place Lady Jane Dudley on the throne. This rebellion failed, however, and Mary was proclaimed Queen in the summer of 1553. Lady Jane was beheaded, and Mary seemed to be rid of threats for the time being. Mary married Philip of Spain, the son of the Holy Roman Emperor, returned England to Catholicism, and began burning heretics. However, after she had two false pregnancies and burned more and more heretics, her people began to lose faith in her, and were overjoyed when she died in November of 1558, and was succeeded by the Lady Elizabeth.

Although some topics in this book may raise some controversy, the author, Alison Weir, remains objective throughout, telling mostly the facts. She also mentions some of the rumors that were circulating during this time period, and other uncertainties in this part of history, but never offers her opinion. She manages to convey a voice in her writing through describing the actions of people involved in this time, so that you can almost guess how she feels about the main ideas of this book, but still she remains objective. I think that as the author, she does an awesome job in making this book very interesting, and flow almost like a novel. It’s amazing how she’s pieced all of her resources together, looking specifically at different people’s actions and seeing how they tie into one another in order to tell such a complex story.

There were several big themes that played a role in this book. Religion and perception of gender are only a few. Religion played a part, in the fact that Henry VIII died a Catholic, yet all of his heirs were Protestants except for Mary. Mary was persecuted for holding mass in her home when it was forbidden by Edward VI, and when Mary became Queen, Elizabeth was forced to become Catholic. Also, disputes over religion across the country affected everyone. Mary believed it was her duty to God to rid her kingdom of all heretics, and that she must burn them all at the stake so that they would repent when they felt the heat of the fire, and therefore be saved from eternal damnation. At first she believed that the number of heretics would go down once she began the burnings, but it actually had the opposite effect; the people began to view those executed as martyrs, and still resisted the Catholic faith. Mary showed no mercy, and the burnings continued.

This concept greatly disturbs me. Being brought up in a century where you are taught to respect people who have different ideals, and living in a country that has religious freedom, made me wonder throughout the whole book: Who deserves to die such a horrific death when they simply love the same God as the person condemning them? Who deserves to die for not accepting someone else’s belief? It just shows how different things are now from the way they were back then. Religion played a big role in politics and the everyday lives of people, but this began to change after the Renaissance and the Reformation. I think that, in a way, Queen Mary actually fed the Reformation and Renaissance. Because she forced Catholicism down everyone’s throats and burned anyone at the stake who resisted, she made her people begin to hate Catholicism, which only made them welcome even more the possible accession of a Protestant princess.

Another big theme in this book was perception of gender. In different parts throughout the book, it mentions how it was important that Mary and Elizabeth get married. Throughout their entire lives, strategic marriages were attempted for Mary and Elizabeth that would benefit England. Once Mary became queen, her Council wanted her to marry quickly, because they thought that a woman could not rule a country. When she married Philip, he had some ambitions and plans that Mary vetoed, and so the idea that a woman was subordinate to her husband conflicted with her power over him as sovereign.

Even though I do not agree with the idea that women are subordinate to men, I do not think that Mary was best suited to rule England, for two reasons. One, which I don’t think is entirely her fault, was her education. Even though she had good tutors and was smart, she was not educated in affairs of the country and was not taught as a future Queen of England, and therefore wasn’t prepared intellectually for the task of ruling the kingdom. For this, I would actually blame Henry VIII, because he neglected to give Mary this education in the hope that he would have sons who would one day rule instead of her. Edward VI received an education that truly prepared him to rule; Mary didn’t.

The second reason has to do with her upbringing. She had an awful childhood: she was declared a bastard, separated from her mother, and put through other incidents that greatly scarred her emotionally. She wanted so much to love and be loved, that she soon became obsessed with the idea of marrying Philip after she became Queen. I think that this made her a little crazy. She was so determined to please her husband, and when she failed to have a child, it made her depressed and angry and incompetent. So therefore, in her circumstance, she wasn’t prepared emotionally, either, to rule England, and once again I blame her father. He treated her so badly after her mother died, not showing her love anymore, and really put her through a lot mentally, never thinking that one day she would actually rule. Overall, Henry VIII neglected his daughter and heir, and I feel like that is why she was incompetent, and why her reign was a dark period in English history.

There are some religious implications for me. I became Catholic when I was little, yet I respect and don’t criticize other denominations of Christianity, or any other religion. However, back in the sixteenth century, there was only one ‘true’ religion, and that religion was determined by the current monarch. If you lived in England and disagreed with the ruler, then you could be burnt at the stake. This made me question my faith a little, but made me think that Mary was a little misguided, and maybe a little crazy in the days of the burnings. It wasn’t even as if she were sending people who believed things completely different from her, she was killing people who loved the same God as she. How can you justify killing hundreds of people when they simply love God, yet have slightly different beliefs?

I think that there are also other religious implications for city, state—and entire world. Some people may blame Catholicism for the deaths of the many during Mary’s reign, and so the religion’s integrity might have been scarred a little. Sometimes now when I think about the history of Catholicism, I think of Bloody Mary, and that kind of disappoints me. I love my religion, yet feel like Mary’s reign was an embarrassing hour in its history, and I’m sure that other people may feel the same way. But, now we’re in a time of religious freedom and respect, which I believe is the best course for the world.

Many parts in this book can remind of me of other situations. Since the beginning of time, people have been struggling for power in the world, which was a big part of this book. After Edward VI died, one member of his council, the Duke of Northumberland, tried to put Lady Jane Dudley on the throne because he felt like he could easily influence her, and therefore have more power in government, like ruling through her name. This kind of reminded me of another situation where an outside source has influenced a monarch. During World War I in Russia, when the Tsarina of Russia was left to rule when the tsar left to fight in the war, she was highly influenced by Rasputin. I think that this type of situation can apply to many modern situations. Usually, leaders or rulers will be influenced by people who are close to them. I’m sure that rulers are always a little influenced by their husbands or wives once in a while, as well as their friends, and other family. That type of instance may be not harmful, and actually helpful. But, if someone is completely ruling through someone who is just a figure head, then that is the sign of a corrupt government, and a sign that things need to change.

Mary’s battle to cleanse her kingdom of all non-Catholics reminds me of learning about holy wars in history class, where some highly religious Christian or Islamic power would fight to gain land, and then force their religion onto the conquered people. The two situations are actually pretty different, but just the whole idea of someone trying to force their religion onto someone else is really similar. Like I said before, I think that religious freedom is the best course for the world, so that people can learn to respect their differences and then move on to deal with other matters that don’t have to do with religion. I think that one of the main problems during Mary’s reign was how she focused so much of her energy on trying to gain religious uniformity in England—so much so that she wasn’t able to fully devote herself to other matters, like politics, and England’s economy. It was actually proved that her efforts were wasted when everyone happily welcomed Elizabeth, a Protestant princess, as queen. It proved that she hadn’t wiped out everyone who had objected to Mary’s policies; therefore, you can never be successful when you are trying to completely force your beliefs onto someone else (a universal theme).

I learned several things from reading this book. I have always been interested in the Tudors; I’m not sure why, but writers and historians have obsessed over this royal family for a long time—writing books and making movies and TV series. I read a few Philippa Gregory historical fiction novels in eighth grade, starting with The Constant Princess up until The Queen’s Fool, because that era in history fascinates me. Of course, those books are fiction, but I still got the main ideas of what happened, even if the author made up some details. I actually read another of Alison Weir’s books before reading The Children of Henry VIII, called The Innocent Traitor (about the life of Lady Jane Grey). I had known that Alison Weir wrote nonfiction as well, and so that was why I picked The Children of Henry VIII to read. The Children of Henry VIII was almost like a novel in how it was written, but I still learned many new facts about the period of English history following the death of Henry VIII. I learned about how the actions and feelings of each person affected other people and related to important events; I learned how religion played an important role in the decisions of the government and the actions of the citizens; I learned about the true character of people through Weir’s remarkable piecing together of facts and events; and I learned about how events described in this book relate to things now, and how I can relate this book to things that have happened in my life and lifetime.

Although this book was well written and an interesting read, I still thought some parts were boring. I’ve come to learn that that’s what can be expected from nonfiction books—some parts may be interesting, but when you’re sticking completely to facts, at times it is going to get boring. I absolutely love reading fiction, and one major difference I’ve noticed between nonfiction and fiction is how the story is told. Fiction stories can be right now, in the moment—specifically detailing every part of the plot: the scene, the characters’ thoughts, etc., whereas in nonfiction it is much more general and just more like a collection of facts instead of a story where at all times you can picture being in the moment. I’ve read some pretty boring nonfiction books in my life (actually, some fiction ones, too), but The Children of Henry VIII was definitely one of the better ones. I think that part of the reason why I enjoyed it so much was the fact that I had a prior knowledge to the events described in the book. I think that that is key to reading a nonfiction book, so that you’re not totally confused while reading it. Luckily for me I had that advantage while reading, and that helped me to comprehend everything, realize significant events, and to truly digest The Children of Henry VIII.