What do you think?
Rate this book
Divorced, Beheaded, Survived: A Feminist Reinterpretation of the Wives of Henry VIII
The women who wed Henry VIII are remembered mainly for the ways their royal marriages ended: divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived.
This book helps to restore full humanity to these six fascinating women by applying the insights of feminist scholarship. Here they appear not as stereotypes, not simply as victims, but as lively, intelligent noblewomen doing their best to survive in a treacherous court.
Divorced, Beheaded, Survived takes a revisionist look at 16th-century English politics (domestic and otherwise), reinterpreting the historical record in perceptive new ways. For example, it shows Ann Boleyn not as a seductress, but as a sophisticate who for years politely suffered what we would now label royal sexual harassment.
It presents evidence that the princess Anne of Cleves, whom Henry declared ugly and banished from his bed, was in fact a pretty woman who agreed to the king's whim as her best hope for happiness.
This book helps to restore full humanity to these six fascinating women by applying the insights of feminist scholarship. Here they appear not as stereotypes, not simply as victims, but as lively, intelligent noblewomen doing their best to survive in a treacherous court.
Divorced, Beheaded, Survived takes a revisionist look at 16th-century English politics (domestic and otherwise), reinterpreting the historical record in perceptive new ways. For example, it shows Ann Boleyn not as a seductress, but as a sophisticate who for years politely suffered what we would now label royal sexual harassment.
It presents evidence that the princess Anne of Cleves, whom Henry declared ugly and banished from his bed, was in fact a pretty woman who agreed to the king's whim as her best hope for happiness.
231 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1995
36 people are currently reading
4379 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 128 reviews
August 29, 2021
I was surprised when I looked back at my "Books Read" list. The only Tudor book I've read is "The Other Boleyn Girl" and that was historical fiction with factual liberties taken. The story of Henry VIII and his six wives had exhausted its appeal for me because of the many past TV shows I've watched - The Tudors, 2007, Showtime; The Six Wives of Henry VIII, 1970 BBC; and the film version of The Other Boleyn Girl with Scarlett Johansson. And then I ran across this book with the subtitle "A Feminist Reinterpretation of the Wives of Henry VIII" and decided to give it a go. Especially since I've never read a non-fiction book about Henry VIII's reign. I'm really glad I did.
This book is excellent. Karen Lindsey's writing is some of the best I've read in awhile. I looked up her bio and to my disappointment she's written no other histories. Only feminist and health books. What a shame. I've decided to follow her on Goodreads in case she is ever motivated to write something like this book in the future. The main feminist view I detected was Lindsey's judgement of the women's sexual morality. Her stance is pretty much "Give them a break!" Even the most wanton of the six wives, Kathryn Howard, wasn't too bad. She had two exclusive affairs before Henry - she was not promiscuous by modern standards. Nothing compared to the men of her era. She did commit adultery. Probably because by this time Henry was a fat old geezer who thought he was still a stud and blamed the woman when he couldn't perform.
I'm glad I didn't pass on reading this book. I thoroughly enjoyed Lindsey's fast-paced and factual storytelling.
This book is excellent. Karen Lindsey's writing is some of the best I've read in awhile. I looked up her bio and to my disappointment she's written no other histories. Only feminist and health books. What a shame. I've decided to follow her on Goodreads in case she is ever motivated to write something like this book in the future. The main feminist view I detected was Lindsey's judgement of the women's sexual morality. Her stance is pretty much "Give them a break!" Even the most wanton of the six wives, Kathryn Howard, wasn't too bad. She had two exclusive affairs before Henry - she was not promiscuous by modern standards. Nothing compared to the men of her era. She did commit adultery. Probably because by this time Henry was a fat old geezer who thought he was still a stud and blamed the woman when he couldn't perform.
I'm glad I didn't pass on reading this book. I thoroughly enjoyed Lindsey's fast-paced and factual storytelling.
April 12, 2011
Okay, I should preface by saying that I am a history junkie, and that Tudor England is my drug of choice. Seriously, it’s like my crack. I know all the major players, I know how most historians view each person, I know who participated in who’s downfall. I’m the person to go to for any Tudor related question. I’m also the person who loved the tv show The Tudors because of all the sexy men but grumbled about the historical accuracies, mostly due to the timeline. Also, I love the Spanish Ambasador Chapuys. He was so witty. In life, and on The Tudors.
Now, I know what some of you are thinking. Jenn, if you know so much about Tudor history, why do you still read about it. Well, the obvious answer is, like I already mentioned, it’s like crack to me. The not obvious answer is that it had a lot to do with the whole feminist reinterpretation. I agree with the feminist movement to an extent but I’m not on board with radical feminism, which is what I was expecting. Boy, was I surprised.
Karen Lindsey has done her research and done it well. But rather than pick sides like most historians do, and back only her side, she explains what most (or, frankly just some) historians think, and why she differs with it. She paints all his wives in a more human light than history tends to do. She wrote a very factual text that was interesting, witty and dare I say, fun to read.
Even though the title referenced only the wives, I was pleasantly surprised to find the opening chapter was on Margaret Beaufort (Henry’s grandmother) and the final chapter was on how his three children, and briefly his great-niece Jane Grey, took the throne.
The only qualms I had with the writing was that the author chose to spell the name of Anne Boleyn as “Ann”. It was very distracting. There is some historical debate about the correct spelling of the last name, while Anne was at the French court as a child, she commonly wrote her last name as “Bullen” which would be an almost French pronunciation of the English spelling. But the spelling of her first name has, to my knowledge, never been debated. I double checked with the bibliography included in the back of the book and each book referencing her was spelled as “Anne”. My only guess was that perhaps she didn’t want Boleyn to be confused with the fourth wife, Anne of Cleves or the “heretic” Anne Askew who appears during the time of his sixth wife.
Whatever the reason, I found it very distracting, like I already mentioned and it seemed to make chapters 2-4 kind of drag for me. But once Jane Seymour (wife number three) came into the picture, the pace seemed to pick back up, so I think the fault was my own.
The only other problem that I had was that she included a chapter on Anne Boleyn titled “The Great Whore”. I know that some have referenced her as such in history, but it seemed odd to me that one would chose that chapter title in a feminist reinterpretation. She goes on in later chapters to praise Katheryn Howard’s (wife number 5) ability to be ahead of her time in embracing her sexual desires rather than agreeing to be merely just a political pawn in a patriarchal society. The juxtaposition left me a bit confused.
But all in all, it’s a great read, if history is your thing. Really the only wife that things worked out for was Anne of Cleves (wife number four).
Now, I know what some of you are thinking. Jenn, if you know so much about Tudor history, why do you still read about it. Well, the obvious answer is, like I already mentioned, it’s like crack to me. The not obvious answer is that it had a lot to do with the whole feminist reinterpretation. I agree with the feminist movement to an extent but I’m not on board with radical feminism, which is what I was expecting. Boy, was I surprised.
Karen Lindsey has done her research and done it well. But rather than pick sides like most historians do, and back only her side, she explains what most (or, frankly just some) historians think, and why she differs with it. She paints all his wives in a more human light than history tends to do. She wrote a very factual text that was interesting, witty and dare I say, fun to read.
Even though the title referenced only the wives, I was pleasantly surprised to find the opening chapter was on Margaret Beaufort (Henry’s grandmother) and the final chapter was on how his three children, and briefly his great-niece Jane Grey, took the throne.
The only qualms I had with the writing was that the author chose to spell the name of Anne Boleyn as “Ann”. It was very distracting. There is some historical debate about the correct spelling of the last name, while Anne was at the French court as a child, she commonly wrote her last name as “Bullen” which would be an almost French pronunciation of the English spelling. But the spelling of her first name has, to my knowledge, never been debated. I double checked with the bibliography included in the back of the book and each book referencing her was spelled as “Anne”. My only guess was that perhaps she didn’t want Boleyn to be confused with the fourth wife, Anne of Cleves or the “heretic” Anne Askew who appears during the time of his sixth wife.
Whatever the reason, I found it very distracting, like I already mentioned and it seemed to make chapters 2-4 kind of drag for me. But once Jane Seymour (wife number three) came into the picture, the pace seemed to pick back up, so I think the fault was my own.
The only other problem that I had was that she included a chapter on Anne Boleyn titled “The Great Whore”. I know that some have referenced her as such in history, but it seemed odd to me that one would chose that chapter title in a feminist reinterpretation. She goes on in later chapters to praise Katheryn Howard’s (wife number 5) ability to be ahead of her time in embracing her sexual desires rather than agreeing to be merely just a political pawn in a patriarchal society. The juxtaposition left me a bit confused.
But all in all, it’s a great read, if history is your thing. Really the only wife that things worked out for was Anne of Cleves (wife number four).
March 10, 2018
Divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived.
The lives of Henry VIII's queens summed up in seven short words. You think someone would've made a better rhyme. I mean it works, but well it lacks. True, "Sing a Song of Sixpence" might be, but it gets one upped with the debate about "Mary, Mary Quite Contary".
There have been volumnes written about the wives, some, though while lacking "a feminist reinterpretation" in the sub-title , are still one. The wives at this point seem to have be more fame than their infamous husband whose infamy comes from his treatment of them, and the fact that he is played by a hottie in the Showtime series. So why read this one aboutBluebeard Henry VII and his wives?
Because Lindsey does present, in some cases, an unique look or highlights something that may be glossed over in other works. It isn't an earth shattering book, but it is far better than Joanna Denny's Anne Boleyn: A New Life of England's Tragic Queen. While it is true that like most biographers of the Tudors, Lindsey concludes what the women thought with little proof (there are letters, but that's it), and while she does spend the most time on Katherine of Aragorn and Anne Bolyen, and while she doesn't full protray Jane Seymour, who remains the aptly titled vessel, there is something here.
Lindsey does make some thought stirring, if not thought provoking, ideas in the often trod ground of the first two wives ofBluebeard, Mr Fox Henry VIII.
For instance, it is hard to argue with Lindsey's claim that today we would find Henry's pursuit of Anne Bolyen to be sexual harassament. She points out, makes it very clear that such terms would not be used at all in the time, but she makes a good case that Anne might have been making the best of a situtation that she could not escape. Additionally, Lindsey gives reasons why Katherine of Aragorn and Anne Bolyen should be admired, liked, and pited. She doesn't paint them as sister queens, but she doesn't take sides, making one look good at the expense of the other. She takes them as they are.
But the main reason why you should read this book are the chapters on Anne of Cleves and Katherine Howard. Now, I've always liked Anne of Cleves, who strikes me as the combination of Bluebeard's wife and her sister Anne. Not only does Lindsey make a case that the epitaph "Flanders mare" or "drayhorse mare" should not be used to describe the woman, but she argues that Anne of Cleves took a more active role in her annulment from Henry VIII than most people give her credit for. I'm not sure if I fully buy into the agrument, though the point about sex education seems likely. Could Anne of Cleves have really been that thick? Wouldn't someone mention something before her wedding night? However, Lindsey's theory is really stirring and makes Anne into a true winner, in some ways like the often esteemed Katherine Parr.
The chapter on Katherine Howard lacks this totalling redesign or recasting of character. Yet, Lindsey does make this young Katherine into her own woman. Lindsey has a point - most writers do tend to see Katherine Howard as whore or victim (or a innocent whoring victim ala the Tudors). The idea of Katherine Howard as sexually free woman does, one most admit, become overshadowed by Howard the idiot, but Lindsey does make her human.
Overall, while the book didn't really add knowledge, it did make me think differently about we know about the Tudors.
The lives of Henry VIII's queens summed up in seven short words. You think someone would've made a better rhyme. I mean it works, but well it lacks. True, "Sing a Song of Sixpence" might be, but it gets one upped with the debate about "Mary, Mary Quite Contary".
There have been volumnes written about the wives, some, though while lacking "a feminist reinterpretation" in the sub-title , are still one. The wives at this point seem to have be more fame than their infamous husband whose infamy comes from his treatment of them, and the fact that he is played by a hottie in the Showtime series. So why read this one about
Because Lindsey does present, in some cases, an unique look or highlights something that may be glossed over in other works. It isn't an earth shattering book, but it is far better than Joanna Denny's Anne Boleyn: A New Life of England's Tragic Queen. While it is true that like most biographers of the Tudors, Lindsey concludes what the women thought with little proof (there are letters, but that's it), and while she does spend the most time on Katherine of Aragorn and Anne Bolyen, and while she doesn't full protray Jane Seymour, who remains the aptly titled vessel, there is something here.
Lindsey does make some thought stirring, if not thought provoking, ideas in the often trod ground of the first two wives of
For instance, it is hard to argue with Lindsey's claim that today we would find Henry's pursuit of Anne Bolyen to be sexual harassament. She points out, makes it very clear that such terms would not be used at all in the time, but she makes a good case that Anne might have been making the best of a situtation that she could not escape. Additionally, Lindsey gives reasons why Katherine of Aragorn and Anne Bolyen should be admired, liked, and pited. She doesn't paint them as sister queens, but she doesn't take sides, making one look good at the expense of the other. She takes them as they are.
But the main reason why you should read this book are the chapters on Anne of Cleves and Katherine Howard. Now, I've always liked Anne of Cleves, who strikes me as the combination of Bluebeard's wife and her sister Anne. Not only does Lindsey make a case that the epitaph "Flanders mare" or "drayhorse mare" should not be used to describe the woman, but she argues that Anne of Cleves took a more active role in her annulment from Henry VIII than most people give her credit for. I'm not sure if I fully buy into the agrument, though the point about sex education seems likely. Could Anne of Cleves have really been that thick? Wouldn't someone mention something before her wedding night? However, Lindsey's theory is really stirring and makes Anne into a true winner, in some ways like the often esteemed Katherine Parr.
The chapter on Katherine Howard lacks this totalling redesign or recasting of character. Yet, Lindsey does make this young Katherine into her own woman. Lindsey has a point - most writers do tend to see Katherine Howard as whore or victim (or a innocent whoring victim ala the Tudors). The idea of Katherine Howard as sexually free woman does, one most admit, become overshadowed by Howard the idiot, but Lindsey does make her human.
Overall, while the book didn't really add knowledge, it did make me think differently about we know about the Tudors.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 5, 2008
Eh. It's kind of interesting, but it was supposed to be some groundbreaking feminist take on the wives of Henry VIII...besides focusing on THEM rather than HIM, I didn't see anything in the book as a radical new feminist reinterpretation.
June 20, 2019
Never have I read a book of Renaissance history with so much enjoyment. This is my favorite kind of non-fiction book--well researched and well told by an author who knows how to write without boring or resorting to sensationalism. A balanced, well-thought-out book on the wives and women surround Henry VIII.
While the book focuses mostly on his six wives, the first chapter is on his grandmother Margaret de Beaufort, whose machinations immensely contributed to Henry's family achieving and keeping the throne; and the last chapter or two is on the aftermath of his reign, including brief surveys of the reigns of his children. The chapters are longer than usual, as Ms. Lindsey uses the chapter headings to divide epochs in Henry's life. Usually these coincide with different queens, but with longer reigns, such as that of Queen Catherine of Aragon, there are naturally several sections.
I love how Ms. Lindsey brought in new insight to what is usually taken for granted--the characters of these women. Rather than pigeonholing each to their legacy, or arguing dramatically for a complete reversal of opinion, Ms. Lindsey uses contemporary resources, both of contact with the central figures and of general life in the era to bring out the hidden depths of character, the facets in each face. She deals with religion in a detached manner, which I find refreshing after so many biased accounts in school ("Mary was evil incarnate and Elizabeth was pretty amazing all round"--I mean she was but these people are humans). I find it fascinating how even one character's contributions to history, if left undone, could have changed the entire course of western history. This was such an intense time period!
PG-13 because sex. Duh.
While the book focuses mostly on his six wives, the first chapter is on his grandmother Margaret de Beaufort, whose machinations immensely contributed to Henry's family achieving and keeping the throne; and the last chapter or two is on the aftermath of his reign, including brief surveys of the reigns of his children. The chapters are longer than usual, as Ms. Lindsey uses the chapter headings to divide epochs in Henry's life. Usually these coincide with different queens, but with longer reigns, such as that of Queen Catherine of Aragon, there are naturally several sections.
I love how Ms. Lindsey brought in new insight to what is usually taken for granted--the characters of these women. Rather than pigeonholing each to their legacy, or arguing dramatically for a complete reversal of opinion, Ms. Lindsey uses contemporary resources, both of contact with the central figures and of general life in the era to bring out the hidden depths of character, the facets in each face. She deals with religion in a detached manner, which I find refreshing after so many biased accounts in school ("Mary was evil incarnate and Elizabeth was pretty amazing all round"--I mean she was but these people are humans). I find it fascinating how even one character's contributions to history, if left undone, could have changed the entire course of western history. This was such an intense time period!
PG-13 because sex. Duh.
April 4, 2022
I've had this book since it came out, so over 25 years, and I FINALLY read it, how about that. I'm not really sure what "feminist reinterpretation" means in this case, except for the author adding some snarky remarks about Henry now and then, which is fine. It was very readable, and would be a great introduction to the topic if you don't know this story very well.
April 2, 2008
A good quick read for those interested in Henry VIII and English history. Most historical non-fiction is so long-winded that ones tends to forget almost anything they learned through the book, but the author kept her facts brief and had an interesting modern day spin on a lot of topics brought up. I do think her some of her interpretations were a bit far-fetched, but overall a quick and interesting read on those poor women who fell victim to Henry VIII.
September 28, 2015
My book blog -----> http://allthebookblognamesaretaken.bl...
Do not be fooled. This is not a 'feminist reinterpretation' of anything. In fact, it is an insult to the feminist movement to call this a feminist reinterpretation. In truth it is a thinly veiled attempt to once again make Anne Boleyn a victim, and be wholly sympathetic to the emerging Protestant cause in the last years of Henry's reign (that being said, I myself am of a Protestant persuasion, so that in itself is not the problem. The issue is the author bias).
I have got to start listening to my gut instinct when I read these days. I knew the moment I read the sentence toward the end of one of the early chapters calling Catherine and Ann (author's misspelling, not mine - seriously, why why why??!!) "equally remarkable", that it was all going to be downhill from there. I would never consider Anne Boleyn remarkable in the way I consider Catherine. Catherine is in a class by herself, continuing to carry herself with dignity no matter how cruel Henry became. Anne was manipulative, self-serving, and schemed her way to the throne. However, the author would have you believe that Anne is not only a victim in how history perceives her, but a victim of sexual harassment by Henry as her pursued her relentlessly and would accept no answer except 'yes'.
Um, really?
Apparently, what Anne was REALLY saying, was that she was politely trying to let the king down gently and doing her best to spare his feelings without coming right out and saying she did not want to marry him. The author interprets Anne's actions as saying, "What is clear is that she did NOT want Henry Tudor."
Right. That is TOTALLY believable.
Except, not at all.
The author also insists Anne never loved Henry, which I find a little ridiculous. While I have time and again given my opinion of Anne Boleyn and her role in the break-up of Henry and Catherine, I do believe Anne loved him. I believe she also wanted to be queen - and the Howard stock she came from would prove time and again to be very self-serving and ambitious - but to say she never loved him seems far-fetched. While he was not exactly in his prime anymore, nor was Henry the ailing, disgruntled, paranoid old man he would become by the time he married Catherine Howard or Kathryn Parr. He was still a 'catch' and had certainly been caught by Anne as she had him (though I don't believe there was witchcraft and any of that rubbish that has been used to further blacken Anne's name over the centuries. I think it was pure, old-fashioned lust, coupled with the fact that Catherine was past child-bearing years.)
The author then addresses poor Jane, who was lucky enough to die, I suppose, before she could displease the king and be divorced or beheaded. Given what little we know of her - and what we do implies she was of much different character than the outspoken and bold Anne - it is safe to say that had she incurred Henry's displeasure, she was more likely to have been of the 'divorced' variety than the 'beheaded'. That was only reserved the Boleyn/Howard family.
Then we come to Catherine Howard, who made some very stupid decisions. Of course, this is all excused away again under the guise of 'feminist reinterpretation' as her simply being a young woman who knew what she wanted and would do as she pleased. Well gosh that's great, now. The only problem is, Catherine does not live in the 21st century. She lived in the 16th century, where it was not so accepted (and by 'not so' I mean 'not at all') and in addition, to cheat on her husband. While Henry was aging and ailing, he was still her husband. Kings were expected to have mistresses, queens were NOT expected to have lovers on the side - the very succession of the throne was at stake. As much as we may not like the double standard today, it was a fact of life then. Much like her cousin, Katherine gambled, and lost. And much like her cousin, she lost her head for it too. It doesn't make it right, it just makes it acceptable in the context of the times in which they lived and died - and really why attempting to reinterpret this time period with a feminist view does not work or make sense at all.
So, after all that, the book doesn't work because the premise isn't doable. The idea of feminism was not even a thing then, so to take the actions of men and women living 500 years ago and trying to put them into this mold of what feminism looks like today is not possible. Not only that, but we are not privy to most of their thoughts, even when we know what their actions might have been. Aside from that, you will find no new information here, so if you are looking for a book about Henry's wives, look elsewhere.
Do not be fooled. This is not a 'feminist reinterpretation' of anything. In fact, it is an insult to the feminist movement to call this a feminist reinterpretation. In truth it is a thinly veiled attempt to once again make Anne Boleyn a victim, and be wholly sympathetic to the emerging Protestant cause in the last years of Henry's reign (that being said, I myself am of a Protestant persuasion, so that in itself is not the problem. The issue is the author bias).
I have got to start listening to my gut instinct when I read these days. I knew the moment I read the sentence toward the end of one of the early chapters calling Catherine and Ann (author's misspelling, not mine - seriously, why why why??!!) "equally remarkable", that it was all going to be downhill from there. I would never consider Anne Boleyn remarkable in the way I consider Catherine. Catherine is in a class by herself, continuing to carry herself with dignity no matter how cruel Henry became. Anne was manipulative, self-serving, and schemed her way to the throne. However, the author would have you believe that Anne is not only a victim in how history perceives her, but a victim of sexual harassment by Henry as her pursued her relentlessly and would accept no answer except 'yes'.
Um, really?
Apparently, what Anne was REALLY saying, was that she was politely trying to let the king down gently and doing her best to spare his feelings without coming right out and saying she did not want to marry him. The author interprets Anne's actions as saying, "What is clear is that she did NOT want Henry Tudor."
Right. That is TOTALLY believable.
Except, not at all.
The author also insists Anne never loved Henry, which I find a little ridiculous. While I have time and again given my opinion of Anne Boleyn and her role in the break-up of Henry and Catherine, I do believe Anne loved him. I believe she also wanted to be queen - and the Howard stock she came from would prove time and again to be very self-serving and ambitious - but to say she never loved him seems far-fetched. While he was not exactly in his prime anymore, nor was Henry the ailing, disgruntled, paranoid old man he would become by the time he married Catherine Howard or Kathryn Parr. He was still a 'catch' and had certainly been caught by Anne as she had him (though I don't believe there was witchcraft and any of that rubbish that has been used to further blacken Anne's name over the centuries. I think it was pure, old-fashioned lust, coupled with the fact that Catherine was past child-bearing years.)
The author then addresses poor Jane, who was lucky enough to die, I suppose, before she could displease the king and be divorced or beheaded. Given what little we know of her - and what we do implies she was of much different character than the outspoken and bold Anne - it is safe to say that had she incurred Henry's displeasure, she was more likely to have been of the 'divorced' variety than the 'beheaded'. That was only reserved the Boleyn/Howard family.
Then we come to Catherine Howard, who made some very stupid decisions. Of course, this is all excused away again under the guise of 'feminist reinterpretation' as her simply being a young woman who knew what she wanted and would do as she pleased. Well gosh that's great, now. The only problem is, Catherine does not live in the 21st century. She lived in the 16th century, where it was not so accepted (and by 'not so' I mean 'not at all') and in addition, to cheat on her husband. While Henry was aging and ailing, he was still her husband. Kings were expected to have mistresses, queens were NOT expected to have lovers on the side - the very succession of the throne was at stake. As much as we may not like the double standard today, it was a fact of life then. Much like her cousin, Katherine gambled, and lost. And much like her cousin, she lost her head for it too. It doesn't make it right, it just makes it acceptable in the context of the times in which they lived and died - and really why attempting to reinterpret this time period with a feminist view does not work or make sense at all.
So, after all that, the book doesn't work because the premise isn't doable. The idea of feminism was not even a thing then, so to take the actions of men and women living 500 years ago and trying to put them into this mold of what feminism looks like today is not possible. Not only that, but we are not privy to most of their thoughts, even when we know what their actions might have been. Aside from that, you will find no new information here, so if you are looking for a book about Henry's wives, look elsewhere.
October 27, 2016
I was hoping for more from this book. It had its great moments, like when she proposed that Anne Boleyn's situation (when she was a court lady in waiting to the queen and being pursued by the king) was not unlike sexual harassment in the workplace. Great idea that lets you imagine a third option besides "I'm going to marry the king because I want power over the man who spoiled my young love" or "I'm going to marry the king because I'm madly in love with him." Her hypothesis for why Henry decided Anne of Cleves was ugly (and history supported his decision) after barging in on her disguised as a messenger was another great moment. He was far from the young lively prince he'd been 30 years before, and in the moment before she realized who he was, her reaction showed and he saw himself in a light he never previously thought of, and neither of them could un-see that moment. Interesting thought!
I loved how she just gave no quarter to Henry - she isn't the first to say he was just a big spoiled baby who blamed everyone else for everything, but she doesn't hold back. She also doesn't allow any sugarcoating of Jane Seymour. She comes up with another way to view Catherine Howard, I'm not sure whether or not I buy it as it's pretty anachronistic. I found it unexpectedly distracting that she changed the spelling of the wives' names so there would be no confusion - it just felt eccentric, and I was never in any danger of being confused as to which one we were talking about. She also shines a useful light on some figures around the queens, like Catherine Willoughby. I wish she had not read so many historical romances, because it occasionally showed through in her interpretations. It had good moments, it pointed out weak assumptions made by previous historians, and it focused on what women's lives were like at the time. I just wish there'd been more "reinterpretation" and less narrating of a story we already know.
I loved how she just gave no quarter to Henry - she isn't the first to say he was just a big spoiled baby who blamed everyone else for everything, but she doesn't hold back. She also doesn't allow any sugarcoating of Jane Seymour. She comes up with another way to view Catherine Howard, I'm not sure whether or not I buy it as it's pretty anachronistic. I found it unexpectedly distracting that she changed the spelling of the wives' names so there would be no confusion - it just felt eccentric, and I was never in any danger of being confused as to which one we were talking about. She also shines a useful light on some figures around the queens, like Catherine Willoughby. I wish she had not read so many historical romances, because it occasionally showed through in her interpretations. It had good moments, it pointed out weak assumptions made by previous historians, and it focused on what women's lives were like at the time. I just wish there'd been more "reinterpretation" and less narrating of a story we already know.
April 8, 2013
If it deals with British history, I, like Ron Burgundy, will read absolutely anything that's put in front of me, so I know my shit when it comes to the Tudors. I picked this one up because it offered a new take on the traditional narrative on the six ladies unlucky enough to be Henry's bride.
Normally, I steer clear of modernist takes, especially feminist re-workings, as these often attribute modern attitudes and social norms on historic people and societies. That said, Lindsey's book had some interesting insights into the minds and motives of Henry and his queens.
For instance, Lindsey takes the story of Henry meeting his 'Flanders Mare' and turns it around: maybe Anne was the one disgusted with her intended and Henry (on the winning side of history) was retaliating. Interesting...
Even though several of Lindsey's claims are just that--claims--her ideas are food for thought. No one, even the traditionalists, knows positively what went on behind court eyes and behind closed doors, so it's fun to consider a new set of motivations for these now silent figures.
Normally, I steer clear of modernist takes, especially feminist re-workings, as these often attribute modern attitudes and social norms on historic people and societies. That said, Lindsey's book had some interesting insights into the minds and motives of Henry and his queens.
For instance, Lindsey takes the story of Henry meeting his 'Flanders Mare' and turns it around: maybe Anne was the one disgusted with her intended and Henry (on the winning side of history) was retaliating. Interesting...
Even though several of Lindsey's claims are just that--claims--her ideas are food for thought. No one, even the traditionalists, knows positively what went on behind court eyes and behind closed doors, so it's fun to consider a new set of motivations for these now silent figures.
November 19, 2015
3.5 Stars.
A very interesting read, but I would have liked the chapters to be longer and to include more specific detail about each of the Queens than it did. That being said, it was a lot of fun to learn about the women around the Queens and the Tudor court at the time.
A very interesting read, but I would have liked the chapters to be longer and to include more specific detail about each of the Queens than it did. That being said, it was a lot of fun to learn about the women around the Queens and the Tudor court at the time.
March 21, 2019
Karen Lindsey's Divorced, Beheaded, Survived: A Feminist Reinterpretation of the Wives of Henry VIII comes exactly as advertised: a short, caustic revisionist look at the Tudor monarch's life and times through the the women unlucky to marry him. Lindsey scrapes away centuries of stereotyping and slander behind the common narrative of Tudor England, depicting Henry as a world-class narcissist incapable of seeing anything outside his own gratification. This much isn't groundbreaking, though most biographers frame his actions in more guarded terms. More interesting are Lindsey's assessments of Henry's Queens, each of whom emerges as a vivid personality in her own right rather than accessories to the King's lusts and misrules. Catherine of Aragon is a tough, haughty Queen who showed more intelligence and managerial skills than her husband; Anne Boleyn, far from the temptress of popular imagination, endured years of sexual harassment before cannily deciding to turn her situation to her advantage; Jane Seymour, a cipher by design; Anne of Cleves, who outwitted the surly King to escape a bad marriage; Catherine Howard, a smart, sexually adventurous woman whose only crime, it appears, is not adhering to gender roles that persist to this day; and Katherine Parr, who used a quick marriage to an aged, impotent Henry to secure her future. In Lindsey's hands, all become interesting figures who deserved far better than to marry Henry VIII. Sadly, history didn't work out for them.
January 13, 2019
Actual rating: 3.75 stars.
This was a fun, fast read. Lindsey's style is lively, witty and ironic. The way she describes certain events is deeply amusing, and her snarky comments about Henry are especially delightful. She gives an objective overview of the six wives (although I got the feeling she doesn't much like Jane Seymour), and she even spends some time talking about other inspiring women of the time such as Mary Tudor, the French Queen, Catherine Willoughby and Anne Askew.
However, I think the subtitle "A Feminist Reinterpretation of the Wives of Henry VIII" is not very apt. She does makes some interesting points, like the fact that Henry's obsession for Anne was much like sexual harassament, and that Anne of Cleves might have had an active role in her divorce from Henry (I loved her theory about the infamous conversation Anne had with her ladies in waiting); but for the most part, her views of the wives aren't very original. She mostly recounts their lives, but I would have liked to read more comments and theories about their personalities, because the ones she did were quite fascinating.
Not a groundbreaking research, but still well worth a read, especially if you are intimidated by overly long and academic non-fictions.
This was a fun, fast read. Lindsey's style is lively, witty and ironic. The way she describes certain events is deeply amusing, and her snarky comments about Henry are especially delightful. She gives an objective overview of the six wives (although I got the feeling she doesn't much like Jane Seymour), and she even spends some time talking about other inspiring women of the time such as Mary Tudor, the French Queen, Catherine Willoughby and Anne Askew.
However, I think the subtitle "A Feminist Reinterpretation of the Wives of Henry VIII" is not very apt. She does makes some interesting points, like the fact that Henry's obsession for Anne was much like sexual harassament, and that Anne of Cleves might have had an active role in her divorce from Henry (I loved her theory about the infamous conversation Anne had with her ladies in waiting); but for the most part, her views of the wives aren't very original. She mostly recounts their lives, but I would have liked to read more comments and theories about their personalities, because the ones she did were quite fascinating.
Not a groundbreaking research, but still well worth a read, especially if you are intimidated by overly long and academic non-fictions.
April 4, 2021
A thoroughly enjoyably book. If Lindsey could ever be accused of lending a little too much leeway to the women in Henry's life, she is certainly the first to do so. Her account of the wives of Henry VIII offers credible insight which aligns more believably with concurrent narratives than has previously been offered, particularly with respect to the legacy of Anne of Cleves, the callously monikered 'Flanders Mare'.
Lindsey outlines in great detail the moral, political, and personal concerns of each of the doomed women in Henry's life, illuminating (with a hearty dose of creative license, albeit adequately substantiated) the inner worlds of women for whom free choice was an abstract concept for which they found themselves ineligible.
And, for an added luxury, we're afforded details of 16th century female badassery from within *and* without the confines of court, be it the pains taken by Mary Beaufort to ensure the ascension of her son to the throne, or Anne Askew - The Fair Gospeler - who faced the flames with fierce piety, these pages offer a sympathetic ear to those shunned most severely even by modern critics-- including Kathryn Howard.
Five stars.
Lindsey outlines in great detail the moral, political, and personal concerns of each of the doomed women in Henry's life, illuminating (with a hearty dose of creative license, albeit adequately substantiated) the inner worlds of women for whom free choice was an abstract concept for which they found themselves ineligible.
And, for an added luxury, we're afforded details of 16th century female badassery from within *and* without the confines of court, be it the pains taken by Mary Beaufort to ensure the ascension of her son to the throne, or Anne Askew - The Fair Gospeler - who faced the flames with fierce piety, these pages offer a sympathetic ear to those shunned most severely even by modern critics-- including Kathryn Howard.
Five stars.
February 5, 2025
Written in 1995 - this book covers the life stories of the wives of Henry VIII of England. It's a topic I am quite familiar with so the facts as such were not new to me. The book is clearly a reinterpretation, centering the wives and their lives and thoughts. In that the book does not seek to introduce new facts but rather reframe them using a feminist framework.
This in and of itself, is an interesting project. I think the issue for me was that age of the book. There have been a number of history books with a similar project and bent so this reframing doesn't seem radical to me. The rise of female-centric media and fictional properties showing Henry is not so great a light (he is not the hero of the Tudors - fight me), also help with changing this popular perception.
As a result, I struggled to rate this book which is likely a historical text in it of itself. I didn't learn much which was new to me and the interpretations seems "normal" to me. On the positive side, the writing is not dry and quite interesting. This would make a good introduction to anyone who is not as familiar with the period of history.
I am coping out and rating it 3 stars - I enjoyed my time with the book but was never gripped by it.
This in and of itself, is an interesting project. I think the issue for me was that age of the book. There have been a number of history books with a similar project and bent so this reframing doesn't seem radical to me. The rise of female-centric media and fictional properties showing Henry is not so great a light (he is not the hero of the Tudors - fight me), also help with changing this popular perception.
As a result, I struggled to rate this book which is likely a historical text in it of itself. I didn't learn much which was new to me and the interpretations seems "normal" to me. On the positive side, the writing is not dry and quite interesting. This would make a good introduction to anyone who is not as familiar with the period of history.
I am coping out and rating it 3 stars - I enjoyed my time with the book but was never gripped by it.
July 8, 2022
I picked this up at the thrift store a couple weeks ago - I have a passing interest in Henry's wives (and a current love of the SIX soundtrack) so I thought I'd grab it and learn a bit more about these women. It was a wonderfully easy non-fiction book to read - the author deliberately did not use footnotes and it read very much like a story. Perhaps I'm not as up on my feminist literature as I should be, but the feminist lens was there but not the highlight. There was also a lot of names of people to keep track of (she had a list at the beginning and I don't really fault her - that was the way of it) so it slowed me down a bit, but it was an enjoyable, fairly easy read.
November 6, 2024
I’ve got strong thoughts on how Lindsey handles some of the women in this book—she harbors favorites, and (more distressingly to me) doesn’t take grooming / sexual abuse into account when thinking about the lives of these women. That said, her Catherine of Aragon is FORCEFUL, her attention to Anne of Cleves admirable, and her Anne Askew, Margaret Beaufort, and Catherine Willoughby are surprising and exciting. This probably shouldn’t be the only book on Tudor women someone reads, but it’s a heck of a place to start.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
October 18, 2019
This book has been sitting on our bookshelf for 10 years, since my daughter was assigned it in high school. After watching the Tudors series on TV I finally read the book to further my acquaintance with Henry's wives. Even though our politics are pretty rough right now, it could be so much worse, especially as a woman in King Henry VIII's court. This book cleared up a few things and filled in this history of Tudors.
January 10, 2014
Despite the subtitle, it's an investigation into what can be reconstructed of their character and their interactions with the king. It's very hard on Henry, but never without evidence. (I'm using her spellings. She used the irregular orthography of the day to separate the women of the same name with different spellings.)
It actually opens with his grandmother Margaret Beauford and her intrigues to put her son, Henry VII, on the throne. And it ends with the reign of Elizabeth, having briefly gone through Edward's reign (in part to cover the deaths of the last two wives), Lady Jane Grey's forced rebellion and death, Mary's marriage and death. Both sections are brief.
A long section on Catherine's adventures ending up married. After Prince Arthur died, they betrothed her to Henry, she started to look like a bad bet and weak alliance, Henry repudiated her on the grounds he had been underage, she hung about, finally getting access to Henry VII when her father appointed her ambassador. . . only when Henry VII died did Henry VIII announced that it had been his father's dying wish that they marry, and did it.
She was queen the longest, so there's a lot to review in her time. Flodden was her victory, not Henry's -- Henry being on the Continent. Also the time of his sister Mary's becoming queen of France and quickly arranging in her widowhood to marry as she choose.
The appearance of Ann. She marshals quite a bit of evidence that Ann merely prompted the time of his wish to get rid of Catherine, that he was already wishing to be rid of her -- and that it was Henry's relentless pursuit, which Ann could not safely dismiss, that triggered the problem. (She observes that over in France, Louis had also had daughters but no sons. He had married with indecent haste after his wife's death, but then, he also safely married off his daughter to his heir. When he didn't get a son, his grandson succeeded in due course.)
The whole ugly adventures of the annulment. Ann being pregnant, Henry went through the ceremony with her before he had even gotten his own court to annul his first marriage. The troubles after. Catherine's Spanish servants, forced to take an oath to remain with her, quibbled about taking it in their own language, and deliberately if subtly mistranslated it. Followed by Catherine's death, and the king's losing interest in Ann, and his growing interest in Jane Seymour. The farce of her trial, which seemed bent on making Henry look innocent by making Ann look insatiable. His open wooing of Jane during it, which managed for the first time to rouse popular sympathy for Ann. And his quick betrothal and marriage once free.
Jane Seymour is much of a cypher. Very little of her character comes out in the records -- though she did get Princess Mary back to court. (With her mother dead, Mary could of course accept Jane as the new queen.) But in due course, she died after childbirth. This did not help his reputation, actually -- there were stories that he had spoken lightly of getting a new wife if she died in childbirth so they should save the child by preference, and that she had died of being forced to leave her bed too soon -- and when he looked aboard, princesses reportedly rejected him as an unhealthy bridegroom. He managed Anne of Cleves. Much discussion of how she looked. In particular, that Holbein's portrait can't have been too far off; Henry, with his habit of severely punishing those he disliked, would certainly not have kept him on as a portrait painter if he had done that. All claims she was ugly stem from after he decided she was, and may have just been falling in line with his decision. Not that Anne minded much. In a discussion with ladies she knew were spies, she earnestly professed that the king came to her bed every night so she couldn't be a maid -- while making it clear nothing had happened, and making herself look so innocent that she didn't even know what happened in bed. Her only concern was staying in England.
Meanwhile, Katherine Howard had already caught his eye. I don't think the author is entirely level-headed about her. Having an affair under the nose of a king known to be particularly paranoid and overbearing is really stunningly stupid, however affairs kings had.
Finally Kathryn Parr, who managed to hold out to the end. Being a widow giving her a legitimate reason not to be a maid -- and after Katherine Howard, the law was that anyone who married the king without being a pure maid or confessing to the fact was a traitor, as was anyone who hid that. Being barren was more interesting. A widow with children had at least proven fertility, even if a queen ought to be a maiden. Perhaps Henry wanted an excuse. There was a truly ugly point where she had disputed with the king about a theological point, and a counselor persuaded him to make out her arrest warrant. Fortunately for her, she found out and staged a little scene to claim she hadn't meant it -- she had only hoped to distract him from the pain in his leg and to draw out his excellent reasoning so she could learn from it -- and then she had to keep her mouth shut. Forever.
Well, she made it the end. And managed to marry the man she loved after. Which brought it all to a close.
Lots of interesting bits of info and glances at court life of the era.
It actually opens with his grandmother Margaret Beauford and her intrigues to put her son, Henry VII, on the throne. And it ends with the reign of Elizabeth, having briefly gone through Edward's reign (in part to cover the deaths of the last two wives), Lady Jane Grey's forced rebellion and death, Mary's marriage and death. Both sections are brief.
A long section on Catherine's adventures ending up married. After Prince Arthur died, they betrothed her to Henry, she started to look like a bad bet and weak alliance, Henry repudiated her on the grounds he had been underage, she hung about, finally getting access to Henry VII when her father appointed her ambassador. . . only when Henry VII died did Henry VIII announced that it had been his father's dying wish that they marry, and did it.
She was queen the longest, so there's a lot to review in her time. Flodden was her victory, not Henry's -- Henry being on the Continent. Also the time of his sister Mary's becoming queen of France and quickly arranging in her widowhood to marry as she choose.
The appearance of Ann. She marshals quite a bit of evidence that Ann merely prompted the time of his wish to get rid of Catherine, that he was already wishing to be rid of her -- and that it was Henry's relentless pursuit, which Ann could not safely dismiss, that triggered the problem. (She observes that over in France, Louis had also had daughters but no sons. He had married with indecent haste after his wife's death, but then, he also safely married off his daughter to his heir. When he didn't get a son, his grandson succeeded in due course.)
The whole ugly adventures of the annulment. Ann being pregnant, Henry went through the ceremony with her before he had even gotten his own court to annul his first marriage. The troubles after. Catherine's Spanish servants, forced to take an oath to remain with her, quibbled about taking it in their own language, and deliberately if subtly mistranslated it. Followed by Catherine's death, and the king's losing interest in Ann, and his growing interest in Jane Seymour. The farce of her trial, which seemed bent on making Henry look innocent by making Ann look insatiable. His open wooing of Jane during it, which managed for the first time to rouse popular sympathy for Ann. And his quick betrothal and marriage once free.
Jane Seymour is much of a cypher. Very little of her character comes out in the records -- though she did get Princess Mary back to court. (With her mother dead, Mary could of course accept Jane as the new queen.) But in due course, she died after childbirth. This did not help his reputation, actually -- there were stories that he had spoken lightly of getting a new wife if she died in childbirth so they should save the child by preference, and that she had died of being forced to leave her bed too soon -- and when he looked aboard, princesses reportedly rejected him as an unhealthy bridegroom. He managed Anne of Cleves. Much discussion of how she looked. In particular, that Holbein's portrait can't have been too far off; Henry, with his habit of severely punishing those he disliked, would certainly not have kept him on as a portrait painter if he had done that. All claims she was ugly stem from after he decided she was, and may have just been falling in line with his decision. Not that Anne minded much. In a discussion with ladies she knew were spies, she earnestly professed that the king came to her bed every night so she couldn't be a maid -- while making it clear nothing had happened, and making herself look so innocent that she didn't even know what happened in bed. Her only concern was staying in England.
Meanwhile, Katherine Howard had already caught his eye. I don't think the author is entirely level-headed about her. Having an affair under the nose of a king known to be particularly paranoid and overbearing is really stunningly stupid, however affairs kings had.
Finally Kathryn Parr, who managed to hold out to the end. Being a widow giving her a legitimate reason not to be a maid -- and after Katherine Howard, the law was that anyone who married the king without being a pure maid or confessing to the fact was a traitor, as was anyone who hid that. Being barren was more interesting. A widow with children had at least proven fertility, even if a queen ought to be a maiden. Perhaps Henry wanted an excuse. There was a truly ugly point where she had disputed with the king about a theological point, and a counselor persuaded him to make out her arrest warrant. Fortunately for her, she found out and staged a little scene to claim she hadn't meant it -- she had only hoped to distract him from the pain in his leg and to draw out his excellent reasoning so she could learn from it -- and then she had to keep her mouth shut. Forever.
Well, she made it the end. And managed to marry the man she loved after. Which brought it all to a close.
Lots of interesting bits of info and glances at court life of the era.
May 8, 2018
I'm still trying to figure out how Divorced, Beheaded, Survived is a feminist reinterpretation of the story of the 6 wives of Henry VIII. I feel fairly disappointed, as this book offered nothing new to the story of these women, and it definitely didn't offer a feminist reinterpretation.
Nevertheless, I still greatly enjoyed Divorced, Beheaded, Survived; Lindsey's book was well researched and she has the perfect writing style for nonfiction - factual but easy to read. As a matter of fact, for much of this book it felt like I was reading a novel.
I'd recommend this to anyone new to the story of the 6 wives of Henry VIII, but to experts looking for a new take, you won't find it here.
4 / 4
Nevertheless, I still greatly enjoyed Divorced, Beheaded, Survived; Lindsey's book was well researched and she has the perfect writing style for nonfiction - factual but easy to read. As a matter of fact, for much of this book it felt like I was reading a novel.
I'd recommend this to anyone new to the story of the 6 wives of Henry VIII, but to experts looking for a new take, you won't find it here.
4 / 4
September 24, 2012
I found this book ok but that is all. I didn't find out much new information, simply some reinterpretation of old information. I am not so sure that I completely buy that Henry VIII was an egotistical SOB and nothing else. He ruled a difficult country successfully for many decades and even this author admitted that people were genuinelly grieved by his death. Was he egotisitical? well, yes, of course. In his position, how could he not be egotistical, the most important person in the entire country? Was he an SOB? To some degree, yes. I'm not all that convinced he was an SOB by the standards of his time. In our times, sure he'd have been guilty of statutory rape with Katherine Howard (age 15). The concept didn't exist in that time and by all accounts Katherine knew what to expect in bed because she had already experienced it. Today that might not be considered particularly bad but back then that was enough to ruin a woman. And if she were indiscrete enough to carry on a relationship after marriage, she was a foolish person indeed. There was a double standard and even if you disagree now with the double standard (still around, how many times do you hear the phrase boys will be boys still?) it didn't matter. Katherine Howard made the worst mistake possible for a woman of that time and paid for it with her life. That doesn't make Henry an SOB. Did any of the wives have any choice about marrying him? No, of course they didn't but again, that wasn't something to blame on Henry as on the beliefs of society. People at that time if they turned down Henry for their sisters or daughters, were probably more concerned about Henry's beliefs and politics more than the huge number of wives he went through. The women may have had other opinions but they kept their opinions quiet unless they were far enough away to be completely safe from Henry. Don't get me wrong: I don't think Henry VIII was a nice pleasant person for the most part....although I think the author makes a convincing case that Catherine of Aragon loved him....but he was smart and a decent ruler and that was his job.
The author argues that Henry simply had able people who did the actual ruling for him. I doubt that was true. Henry was perfectly aware of an earlier Henry (H. VI) who allowed others to rule for him and what a disaster that was. He would have known of other English rulers who made that mistake too. No, Henry may have relied heavily on these men, particularly when young, but he was the ruler and people forgot it only to be executed.
To be fair, this is a slightly older book now and may simply have been overtaken by newer authors who take a lot of what this author presented as for granted. I don't regret reading this book, I simply didn't gather much new information except on some of the more peripheral figures of the time.
The author argues that Henry simply had able people who did the actual ruling for him. I doubt that was true. Henry was perfectly aware of an earlier Henry (H. VI) who allowed others to rule for him and what a disaster that was. He would have known of other English rulers who made that mistake too. No, Henry may have relied heavily on these men, particularly when young, but he was the ruler and people forgot it only to be executed.
To be fair, this is a slightly older book now and may simply have been overtaken by newer authors who take a lot of what this author presented as for granted. I don't regret reading this book, I simply didn't gather much new information except on some of the more peripheral figures of the time.
February 20, 2017
This is a short, witty, and well-researched account of Henry VIII's matrimonial misadventures. The author has an enjoyable turn of phrase, by turns sardonic and deeply moving. As the subtitle suggests, Lindsey is particularly interested in applying modern feminist scholarship to our understanding of Henry's consorts, which she does intelligently and clearly, without being overbearing or distorting the evidence. It is particularly well done in the sections on Anne Boleyn, Jane Seymour, and Catherine Howard. Even if one does not always agree with her conclusions, Lindsey writes with admirable liveliness and honesty.
In terms of new research, "Divorced, Beheaded, Survived" offers nothing, but then it neither pretends nor intends to do so. Instead, it seeks to re-interpret six early modern queens consort in light of modern ideas. It achieves its aim and in doing so offers a few new ideas to mull over for those well-read on the subject - particularly provocative, and sobering, is her insistence that Henry VIII's pursuit of Anne Boleyn in the 1520s would, in modern terms, tick every box in the category of sexual harassment - but through its length and style of writing, this book can also be recommended as a solid and enjoyable introductory read on an ever-fascinating topic.
In terms of new research, "Divorced, Beheaded, Survived" offers nothing, but then it neither pretends nor intends to do so. Instead, it seeks to re-interpret six early modern queens consort in light of modern ideas. It achieves its aim and in doing so offers a few new ideas to mull over for those well-read on the subject - particularly provocative, and sobering, is her insistence that Henry VIII's pursuit of Anne Boleyn in the 1520s would, in modern terms, tick every box in the category of sexual harassment - but through its length and style of writing, this book can also be recommended as a solid and enjoyable introductory read on an ever-fascinating topic.
January 6, 2015
This book was feminist claptrap. The author is not a trained historian and her feminist bias was obvious throughout this book. All the women were GOOD, and all the men were BAD, and Lindsey went to great lengths to show them as being this way all the time, and made up flimsy excuses when the women (rather than the men) behaved badly. She excused Catherine Howard's adultery on the grounds that her life would have been "unbearable" if she couldn't get all the sex she wanted. She also completely ignored any evidence that did not suit her premise. For example, she claimed Catherine Howard did not care for her lover and was only using him for sex, and didn't even bring up the love letter she is known to have written him, where she said she missed him so much and thought her life was very unfortunate when he could not be around her.
This is not history, this is feminist propaganda disguised as history. There are many other better Henry VIII books out there, such as Antonia Fraser's. I suggest the reader go to them first before venturing into this book.
This is not history, this is feminist propaganda disguised as history. There are many other better Henry VIII books out there, such as Antonia Fraser's. I suggest the reader go to them first before venturing into this book.
March 14, 2010
The more I thought about the content of this book, the less I liked it. It purports itself as a "feminist reinterpretation" of Henry VIII's collection of wives. However, because the author does not make more than a handful of references to source material, the reader does not feel the presence of Andrea Dworkin, Gloria Steinem or Adrienne Rich. We hear, instead, the voice of the author herself passing judgments that, though not all that controversial, do not ring of researched or informed rhetoric. As a work of social sciences, therefore, it does not work. As a well-written read on the infamous Tudor king's six wives, however, it is quite interesting. It is too short a book to tread any ground not covered by others, but it is a quick and attention-holding read nonetheless. Anyone looking for an overview on the six women unfortunately wed to Henry VIII would find a good read in Karen Lindsey's book.
April 15, 2019
This is a decent history, and I especially enjoyed reading about Henry's last 3 wives, who are lesser known and are delightfully brought to life by Lindsey. I did not, however, think it was particularly feminist or particularly reinterperative... as a title it's a bit misleading. Lindsey's feminist reinterpretation is largely in terms of speculation though she makes some good points with her reminders to step away from the traditional narrative of Tudor England and look again at the facts. Overall, eh. I learned a lot, but it certainly sells itself as more of an academic history than it actually is.
April 23, 2021
A well written book, even if its premise is a bit outdated now (though it certainly wasn’t when it was written). I would have liked to see more feminist theory applied to the wives, since Lindsey clearly used those sources as research. Much of the book is also devoted to Henry’s first two wives and Jane Seymour is badly neglected, although the last 3 wives are fairly well described. At some points the book seems more like a rehash of history than a new take on it. I did think the epilogue was very convincing in suggesting Elizabeth I may have been influenced by the experiences of all Henry’s wives, not just Anne Boleyn and Catherine Parr.
June 10, 2020
Read this book first before reading another book about Anne Boleyn. Very interesting narrative and tidbits about the wives. Don't believe I learned anything I didn't know before, but a nice read nevertheless.
October 28, 2020
This was okay. I learned a couple of new things, but I think this is better for an introductory to the topic vs being something revolutionary.
November 28, 2019
It has been some time since I read Karen Lindsey’s assessment of the six women who became the queens of Henry VIII, titled ‘Divorced, Beheaded, Survived: a Feminist Reinterpretation of the Six Wives of Henry VIII’. Unfortunately, since that time I have also given away the book, so this review might be somewhat lacking.
Karen Lindsey makes it very clear from the start that her study is a thoroughly feminist assessment of the six very unique women that found themselves bound in matrimony to Henry VIII. Drawing on the writings of several modern feminist scholars and women’s studies, she does offer a robust treatment.
Occasionally, Lindsey does have a habit of easily dismissing certain awkward truths and primary sources which do not fit within the defined margin of her work. Henry VIII is seldom referenced without an unflattering adjective prefixing his name: he is tyrannical, selfish, corpulent, gross, and even in the assessment of his early marriage to Catherine of Aragon, and his happiness with her, which was considerable and lengthy, is dismissed as an illusion created by historians, and his time as ‘Sir Loyal Heart’ is more down to hagiographical historians than sincere.
Her treatment of Katherine Parr is dismissively short, and she centres this heavily on the case of Ann Askew. I do not think Lindsey's assessment of the religious schism of the time is sound, and it seemed to me she very much almost silently likened the religious activities of Askew, Parr, Catherine Willoughby, as augurs of the modern Dianic paganism.
Ultimately as a piece of writing Lindsey’s assessment was well written and lively. It is comparatively short, as I hinted at earlier, and pads itself out with short looks at Beaufort and Henry’s two daughters, and I have often wondered if Lindsey had given herself more time, and a written a more comprehensive piece, if the arguments would have been conveyed better and fuller.
Occasionally, Lindsey does have a habit of easily dismissing certain awkward truths and primary sources which do not fit within the defined margin of her work. Henry VIII is seldom referenced without an unflattering adjective prefixing his name: he is tyrannical, selfish, corpulent, gross, and even in the assessment of his early marriage to Catherine of Aragon, and his happiness with her, which was considerable and lengthy, is dismissed as an illusion created by historians, and his time as ‘Sir Loyal Heart’ is more down to hagiographical historians than sincere.
Her treatment of Katherine Parr is dismissively short, and she centres this heavily on the case of Ann Askew. I do not think Lindsey's assessment of the religious schism of the time is sound, and it seemed to me she very much almost silently likened the religious activities of Askew, Parr, Catherine Willoughby, as augurs of the modern Dianic paganism.
Ultimately as a piece of writing Lindsey’s assessment was well written and lively. It is comparatively short, as I hinted at earlier, and pads itself out with short looks at Beaufort and Henry’s two daughters, and I have often wondered if Lindsey had given herself more time, and a written a more comprehensive piece, if the arguments would have been conveyed better and fuller.
May 23, 2018
The only thing that saved this book from a lower rating was the subject matter. This is supposed to be a “feminist reinterpretation”, but it reads like a trashy tabloid and reduces the incredibly complex people that played out their lives in the Tudor court down to tired archetypes. It’s understood that Henry VIII and his six wives all easily fall into their respective roles: the megalomaniac and the cast off princess, the seductress, the doormat, the ugly one, the whore, and the nurse...but I was hoping this book would help dispel those titles and assist the reader in ways that not only shed light on the feminine motives behind their actions (or inactions), but also break down the stereotypes and ignorance we have looking back at women of the time period. Instead, Lindsey completely undoes any progressive character development of the queens, disregarding the plethora of other (more accurate, may I add) information out there. Twisting facts, taking partial quotes out of context, and focusing on unsubstantiated rumors, the queens described by Lindsey play supporting, unimportant characters to Henry, scurrying around in the background without depth, feeling, or humanity. Furthermore, changing the spellings of the queens’ names to “prevent confusion” is pandering and unnecessary: anyone who picks up the book will have enough of a grasp of the wives to figure out who the book is talking about at any particular time, and anyone reading it will have the mental capabilities to differentiate them. Even an amateur historian like myself could find multiple errors which, if properly researched, could have been corrected...or avoided at all.
Perhaps to call something a “feminist reinterpretation”, that something should do justice to the females in the story instead of glossing them over to make a more sensational bathroom read.
Perhaps to call something a “feminist reinterpretation”, that something should do justice to the females in the story instead of glossing them over to make a more sensational bathroom read.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 128 reviews