At the urging of a Shakespearean friend (Dr. Liam Daley–a Shakespeare scholar, not actually one of his characters), I’ve recently completed the History Cycle–given the marketable but misleading name “The War of the Roses” by Goodreads:
- Shakespeare, The Life and Death of King John (1595-97)
- Shakespeare, The Tragedy of King Richard the Second (1595)
- Shakespeare, The History of Henry the Fourth, Part 1 (1596-97)
- Shakespeare, The History of Henry the Fourth, Part 2 (1597-98)
- Shakespeare, The Life of Henry the Fifth (1599)
- Shakespeare, The First Part of Henry the Sixth (1591)
- Shakespeare, The Second Part of Henry the Sixth (1591)
- Shakespeare, The Third Part of Henry the Sixth (1591)
- Shakespeare, The Tragedy of King Richard the Third (1592-94)
- Shakespeare and John Fletcher, The Famous History of the Life of King Henry the Eighth (1613)
The true History Cycle includes the central 8 books (R2, 1H4, 2H4, H5, 1H6, 2H6, 3H6, R3), there is a spurious Edward III play, and the dates are my own, but that’s the list I have finally finished off. I’d like to talk about my broader experience after I source and read the spurious The Raigne of King Edward the Third (1596), but I wanted to leave a brief note about H8.
Growing up, the only thing I knew about Henry VIII (the play) was that, within the first days of its public run, one of the dramatic effects–cannon fire–burned the Globe to the ground in 1613. I have read this strange play and have some thoughts that are not terribly linear.
Henry VIII was an incongruous read for me, and certainly my first time encountering any of this material in Shakespeare. H8 lacks the atmosphere and grandeur of the History Cycle, and even King John was far more vivid and poetic. Other than a plot that is less linear than these notes, my three interlocking complaints come down to characters, storytelling, and style.
H8 has a dizzying array of characters and an inordinate amount of stage instruction. It relies on the audience’s knowledge of the history, which I lack in some parts. I know the outline, but I get lost in all the lords and bishops, who come in successive waves as their heads get separated from their shoulders or the playwrights need a new talkie scene explaining what’s going on.
I’ve read a good amount of history, as well as Alison Weir’s historical pieces and Margaret George’s The Autobiography of Henry VIII: With Notes by His Fool, Will Somers, so I should remember all my lords and bishops … but it is not my strong suit, even when Googling online resources. Ultimately, I had DeepSeek make a list for me (see the bottom of your screen). It needs closer scrutiny, but it generally works well. Unfortunately, I only gave in and made it during Act V–too late to be of much help. To make matters worse, I did not have a paper copy: my Kindle copy just gave a 3/4-letter character name, like King, Kath, Wols, Cran, Cam, Den, Lov. Ugh. So, a thank you to online nerds for the late-night reading help.
Some of the prose jarred me. Partly, my Kindle was giving me an American version that had been cleaned up as much as possible, potentially disrupting the cadence. However, I’m certain this is not among the best plays of English literature. Scholars propose that the play was co-written by Shakespeare and John Fletcher, one of The King’s Men. There are stylistic shifts, certainly. While I prefer Shakespeare‘s traditional tragedic and historical blank verse speeches, Katherine is brilliant as she is demoted from Queen to Dowager Princess, and the King’s key advisor, Cardinal Wolsey, has a series of downfall speeches that are almost legendary in their humanizing effects. Pretty much anyone going to their deathbed or soliloquizing queens is fluent and vivid in this play.
The Court for the Trial of Queen Katharine by George Henry Harlow, 1817
By contrast, a lot of the play is dull and straightforward. This feature has the advantage of being understandable, I suppose, as it lacks complex metaphor and Shakespeare‘s playful mixing of new words. I haven’t counted myself, but I would bet it is very thin on hapax legomena (unique words in Shakespeare‘s corpus). More than this, though, is a puzzling irony: This is the play with the most nonspeaking actions, costumes, parades, musicians, sound effects, and extras; still, it has a massive amount of “tell” rather than “show.” Random characters are always meeting on stage to explain what has happened, will happen, or might have happened in a universe parallel to Shakespeare’s own.
And yet, I was intrigued by the way that the poets played with past and present.
There is much to be said about the religious background. As the play becomes public, the Authorized Version has just appeared: King James’ mum was a Roman Catholic, Queen Elizabeth negotiated the Anglican settlement over decades, and I’m pretty sure that this is the only Shakespeare play that mentions Cranmer’s prayer book. The setting of the play, though, is 80 years earlier, in the heat of Reformation debates and within the power struggles of the court, the commons, and the clergy. Future Queen Elizabeth is christened at the end of the play, and prophesied to be the virgin saviour of England. It is a nice touch, a decade after she died.
The royal past and present were still more complex. Henry VII emerges as a late-but-confident hero in Richard III, but Shakespeare’s treatment of him is thin. Henry VIII’s elder brother, Arthur, was H7’s heir. He died before his father, but after marrying Katherine of Aragon–reputedly before the marriage was consummated. To shore up his claim, a young Henry VIII married Katherine, but they had no sons and only one surviving daughter, Mary I (who later got the supervillain title, Bloody Mary).
In this play, H8 has a public crisis of conscience about his marriage being immoral (he has been married to his sister for 20+ years, which is neither kingly nor Christian). He annuls this marriage–though the terms with the most play in the book are “yoke” and “divorce”– and he publicly marries Anne Boleyn, a captivating courtier in poor Queen Katherine’s entourage. In the play, Katherine’s death follows the wedding and coronation of Anne. Anne gives birth to Henry’s second surviving daughter, Elizabeth I. H8’s third wife, Jane Seymour, gives birth to Henry’s only son, Edward VI.
Despite many wives and mistresses, Henry VIII had only three legitimate children who lived: a daughter, a son, and a daughter.
The fun begins when Henry VIII dies. As bastards were not in royal fashion at that time, his youngest child, Edward VI, took the throne. He died six and a half years later, still a teenager. Then the oldest surviving daughter, Mary I, seized the throne after competing against Elizabeth on a reality TV show. Bloody Mary fell ill and died a little more than five years into her rule, leaving Elizabeth as the last man standing, so to speak.
Queen Elizabeth famously reigned for 44 years and died without issue. She passed the crown to James, who was ruling at the time this play was first performed. James I was the son of Mary, Queen of Scots–not one of QE1’s best friends. However, Elizabeth’s grandfather, Henry VII, was also James I’s great-great-grandfather. James was the King of the King’s Men, but I’m unsure if he ever saw this play, which praises his second cousin, once removed, Elizabeth, and paints a complex picture of her father’s court.
H8’s love life is complex, so I made a couple of charts with info plucked from Wikipedia. And I will end here, for even though the play is titled “All is True,” I’m still struggling with the basics. Here are the wives and lovers, leaving out the other Boleyn girl:
| # | Name (Title) | Lifespan | Relationship Began | Marriage Date | Fate & End of Relationship |
| 1 | Catherine of Aragon (Queen) | 16 Dec 1485 – 7 Jan 1536 | Betrothal 1503. | 11 Jun 1509 | Annulment (23 May 1533). Died of natural causes; Princess Dowager in the Play). |
| 2 | Anne Boleyn (Queen) | c. 1501 – 19 May 1536 | Courtly pursuit mid-1520s; relationship began 1532ish. | 25 Jan 1533 (secret); 1 Jun 1533 (public) | Executed by beheading at the Tower of London on charges of adultery, incest, and treason (did not produce a son). |
| 3 | Jane Seymour (Queen) | c. 1508 – 24 Oct 1537 | Early 1536; relationship after Anne’s fall. | 30 May 1536 | Died 12 days after giving birth to Edward VI. Henry mourned her deeply. |
| 4 | Anne of Cleves (Queen) | 22 Sep 1515 – 16 Jul 1557 | Marriage arranged by advisors; met 1540. | 6 Jan 1540 | Annulment (9 Jul 1540) on grounds of non-consummation and a pre-contract; outlived Henry. |
| 5 | Catherine Howard (Queen) | c. 1523 – 13 Feb 1542 | Courtship began early 1540. | 28 Jul 1540 | Executed by beheading at the Tower of London for treason (adultery). |
| 6 | Catherine Parr (Queen) | c. 1512 – 5 Sep 1548 | Courted spring/summer 1543; known as a learned widow. | 12 Jul 1543 | Survived Henry. She remarried, died after giving birth. |
| – | Elizabeth “Bessie” Blount (Mistress) | c. 1498 – c. 1540 | Affair began c. 1518-19. | – (Never married) | Relationship ended amicably c. 1522 after bearing his son, Henry FitzRoy. She remarried, died of natural causes. |
Henry the VIII I am, I am, as the song goes. Here are the children:
| # | Child’s Name | Mother | Lifespan | Fate | Highest Title |
| 1 | Stillborn Daughter | Catherine of Aragon | Jan 1510 | Stillborn, 4 months into marriage. | – |
| 2 | Henry, Duke of Cornwall | Catherine of Aragon | 1 Jan 1511 – 22 Feb 1511 | Died aged 52 days. | Prince of England, Duke of Cornwall. |
| 3 | Unnamed Son | Catherine of Aragon | Nov 1513 | Born premature, lived only a few hours. | Prince of England. |
| 4 | Unnamed Son | Catherine of Aragon | Dec 1514 | Died shortly after birth. | Prince of England. |
| 5 | Mary I | Catherine of Aragon | 18 Feb 1516 – 17 Nov 1558 | Died at 42 of health issues. | Queen of England and Ireland (1553-1558). |
| 6 | Unnamed Daughter | Catherine of Aragon | Nov 1518 | Stillborn in the 8th month of pregnancy. | – |
| 7 | Henry FitzRoy (Illegitimate) | Elizabeth Blount (Mistress) | 15 Jun 1519 – 23 Jul 1536 | Died at 17, probably of “consumption” (tuberculosis). | Duke of Richmond and Somerset. |
| 8 | Unnamed Child (Possibly a son) | Anne Boleyn | Mid-1534 | Miscarried at approx. 15-16 weeks. | – |
| 9 | Elizabeth I | Anne Boleyn | 7 Sep 1533 – 24 Mar 1603 | Died at 69 of health issues. | Queen of England and Ireland (1558-1603). |
| 10 | Stillborn Son | Anne Boleyn | 29 Jan 1536 | Miscarried the day of Katherine of Aragon’s funeral. | – |
| 11 | Edward VI | Jane Seymour | 12 Oct 1537 – 6 Jul 1553 | Died at 15 of health issues. | King of England and Ireland (1547-1553). |
| 12 | Stillborn Daughter? | Anne of Cleves | Jul 1541 | Rumoured but unlikely issue. | – |
| 13 | Unnamed Child? | Catherine Howard | Spring 1541 | Suspected miscarriage post-marriage. | – |
Dramatis Personae for Henry VIII
Total Named Speaking Roles: 46 (This includes all named characters, even those with only a few lines. There are also many non-speaking “Lords,” “Ladies,” “Secretaries,” “Guards,” “Attendants,” etc.)
- The Royal Family & Immediate Circle
- King Henry VIII
- Katherine of Aragon(Queen, later Princess Dowager)
- Anne Bullen (Boleyn)(later Marquess of Pembroke, then Queen)
- Old Lady(Anne Boleyn’s companion)
- Patience(Katherine’s gentlewoman)
- The Clergy & Church Officials
- Cardinal Thomas Wolsey(Lord Chancellor, Cardinal of York)
- Cardinal Thomas Cranmer(Archbishop of Canterbury)
- Cardinal Lorenzo Campeius(Papal Legate from Rome)
- Stephen Gardiner(Bishop of Winchester, later the King’s Secretary)
- Bishop of Lincoln(Silent role in trial scene)
- Bishop of Ely(Silent role in trial scene)
- Bishop of Rochester(Silent role in trial scene)
- Abbot of Westminster(Mentioned)
- Doctor Butts(The King’s Physician)
III. The Nobility: Pro-Wolsey / Conservative Faction
(Generally allied with Wolsey or Gardiner)
- Lord Sands(aka Sir William Sands; later Henry’s courtier)
- Sir Henry Guildford(Chamberlain to Henry VIII)
- Sir Thomas Lovell
- Sir Anthony Denny
- Sir Nicholas Vaux(Appears as “Vaux”)
- The Nobility: Anti-Wolsey / Old Aristocracy Faction
(These resent Wolsey’s power and often support Katherine)
- Duke of Buckingham(Edward Bohun)
- Duke of Norfolk(Thomas Howard)
- Duke of Suffolk(Charles Brandon)
- Earl of Surrey(Thomas Howard, the Duke of Norfolk’s son)
- Lord Abergavenny(George Neville, allied with Buckingham)
- Marquess Dorset(Henry Grey? – appears briefly)
- Lord Berkeley(Attendant on Buckingham)
- Government Officials & Servants
- Thomas Cromwell(Wolsey’s secretary, later in royal service)
- Secretaries(to Wolsey – two speaking roles)
- Sir Walter Sands(Distinct from Lord Sands? Possibly a duplication/error)
- Brandon(A Sergeant-at-Arms)
- Griffith(Katherine’s Gentleman Usher)
- Surveyor to the Duke of Buckingham(Charles Knevet, whose testimony dooms Buckingham)
- Crier(of the court)
- Porter(and his Man – comic relief scene at the christening)
- Door-Keeper(at the Council Chamber)
- Garter King-of-Arms(Herald at coronation and christening)
- Sergeant Porter
- Ambassadors & Foreign Dignitaries
- Lord Chancellor(of France – attends the masque)
- Two French Gentlemen(Attend the masque)
VII. Commoners & Others
- Woman(accompanying Anne Boleyn)
- Prologues & Epilogues(Spoken by a single actor, but often listed as separate “Characters”)
- Scrivener(Reads the indictment)
- Messengers(Several)
VIII. Key Non-Speaking / Group Roles (for context)
- Lords and Ladies of the Court
- Bishops and Priests (in various ceremonies)
- Judges
- Spirit vision of Katherine (six white-clad folks in her dream)
- Attendants, Guards, Servants, Pages
With help from DeepSeek.
A Pilgrim in Narnia 
Charts are often quite beneficial… especially in the case of miscreants like Henry VIII, who left so many victims in their wake. His bizarre — and utterly self-interested — relationship with Christianity, and the various Roman Catholic and Reformation movements of his day, clearly reveal a man of little integrity.
However, great work on your part, organizing Shakespeare’s treatment in such an accessible way.
LikeLike
Although you left out the Other Boleyn Girl, she’s known to have had a son by Henry who died young and it’s argued that her daughter Catherine Carey was really Henry’s, not her husband’s. (Catherine certainly looked like Henry.) If so, her blood is posed to take the English throne in the person of Prince William. The small number of Henry’s bastards tends to support Anne Boleyn’s fatal observation that the King wasn’t the great studmuffin he pretended to be. Tabulating the extramarital romps of English kings is made easy thankks to the wonders of wikipedia. (One surprise: William the Conqueror–himself illegitimate–was a devoted and faithful husband to Matilda of Flanders.)
LikeLike
Prof. Dickieson,
For me, all of this talk of royals and succession brings to mind an opening passage in a non-fiction book written by one of the Inklings. It was called “Queen Elizabeth”, by Charles Williams. In terms of content, it really is no more than what it says on the tin, just you basic, almost cursory account of the life of Bess.
What makes it stand out to me is the note of ambivalence Williams seems to introduce towards his subject from the very start. He does this by noting how Elizabeth became part of the great social, political, and even existential changes that were rocking the newly minted modern world of Shakespeare’s era. This is how CW introduces his subject, for instance: “The life of Elizabeth represents, in English history, the longest and most spectacular period of a change in society. That change began before her, and was not concluded until long after her. It was the change from a society directed, at any rate in theory, by a metaphysical idea, to a society directed, both in theory and practice, by nothing but the continual pressure of events. It is a change completed in our own day; beyond our present political accommodation to events we cannot go. We are on the point of discovering whether that accommodation is sufficient, or whether we must return to a metaphysical idea—either that of the past or some other (9)”.
Williams is quick to point out that “This change in society was unintended, through Europe at large as through England in particular. It took place because the results of all human action are always different from anything intended or expected. No ruler and no statesman of the Elizabethan period…wished to abolish metaphysical ideas from their place in society. Elizabeth no more definitely desired it than did Philip of Spain (9-10)”. However, they both end up counting as architects of this change in the Metaphysical Idea (as Williams terms it) of man’s sense of himself, and the nature of his life. A good academic description for what CW is talking about is that he views the Elizabethan Age as a key period in the process of Disenchantment. People are starting lose all those viewpoints that made a tree the possible dwelling place of a dryad, and where a forest could be a community of such spirits.
It’s not such superstitions as these that Williams is concerned with. Instead, it appears more to do with the sense of powerlessness and a lessening of meaning (for lack of a better term) that CW sees as the major fallout stemming from the loss of the older Metaphysical Idea. From Williams point of view, it robs a sense of value from human life on both the collective, and even individual scale. This is the paradigm under which he both views and writes about the life of Elizabeth. It’s because of this particular rubric that even when he’s trying to be sympathetic, one picks up a note decided ambivalence toward the Queen. As for the Shakespearean angle, it should be noted that Williams’ “Elizabeth” text isn’t meant to be read in isolation. It’s clear that biography is meant to form a link in a chain of thought CW has already developed at length in “The English Poetic Mind”. It’s there that Williams posits Shakespeare as trying to grapple with the same problems as the Queen, albeit on a more ground floor level. The Bard is concerned with trying to find a sense of footing in a collective moment of existential uncertainty.
It’s a fascinating thesis, and one that I think can be read with profit in conjunction with another, and now somewhat forgotten contemporary work of criticism. In “Shakespeare and the Nature of Man”, Theodore Spencer tackles the Bard’s writings in relation to what he calls “The Renaissance Conflict”. What makes Spencer’s work of criticism a useful companion to that of Williams is that it soon becomes clear that both critics are discussing the same subject, and of how Shakespeare rose to meet the challenges presented by his era. It’s the tackling of this Crisis of Early Modernity that (according to Williams and Spencer) forms to bedrock of Shakespeare’s “Henriad” or “War of the Roses” play cycle. It posits a picture of a writer who finds himself in an uneasy state of accommodation and conflict with the powers that be, and which are reshaping the very world around him. It’s fascinating, to say the least.
LikeLike