Six Wives: The Queens of Henry VIII (Hardcover)

~ (Author) "Royal weddings in the early sixteenth century, like royal weddings now, were an opportunity for lavish public ceremony..." (more)
Key Phrases: decretal commission, marriage portion, adoptive country, Anne Boleyn, Hampton Court, Dona Elvira (more...)

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

The author of Elizabeth: The Struggle for the Throne turns his attention to the matrimonial saga of Henry VIII. Antonia Fraser and Alison Weir covered much the same ground in the early 1990s. While they expressed particular interest in 16th-century women and marriage, Starkey dwells at greater length on political and religious subtleties, and develops an imposing cast of supporting characters. The bulk of the book inevitably deals with Henry's first two wives, Catherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn. Accounts of the remaining queens are fleshed out nicely to suggest their personalities, their place in the family networks and religious currents at court and the overall patterns of the king's infatuations and disillusionments. Mildly railing at historians who have not reached the same conclusions as he, Starkey claims to counter old stereotypes about his main characters, but cheerfully repeats those of other figures and nations, including Catherine of Aragon's "machiavellian" father and "the Spanish talent for turning sadism into spectacle." His tendency to modernize personalities gives Anne Boleyn more autonomy than seems plausible, making her the major formulator of policy in Henry's first divorce. Our understanding of Henry's rejection of Anne of Cleves, however, benefits from modern willingness to examine whether the king's inability to consummate the marriage led to the break. Caught between scholarly work and storytelling, the book gives us high drama at a languid pace, with overwhelming detail often slowing the narrative. For readers who are not put off, this is a strong, entertaining and occasionally audacious interpretation. An associated PBS series in July may make this book popular. 16 pages of color photos not seen by PW.
Copyright 2003 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Library Journal

From a Cambridge historian.
Copyright 2002 Reed Business Information, Inc.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 880 pages
• Publisher: HarperCollins; First Edition. states and 1 in number lien edition (July 1, 2003)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 069401043X
• ISBN-13: 978-0694010431
• Product Dimensions: 9.6 x 6.4 x 2 inches
• Shipping Weight: 3.1 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 3.3 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (24 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #794,327 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

12 of 13 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Unreadable, May 27, 2004

By A Customer

My children bought this book for me -- I'm a big reader of English history -- and, despite some reservations (based upon Starkey's sloppy bio of Elizabeth) I did give it a shot. But, it's simply unreadable.

First, the writing is just awful. Execrable. Like a really bad pulp novel. Most sections (not just chapters, but sections in a chapter) end with some inane rhetorical question or similar lame attempt to build mystery. Here are some random samples:

"But, within a few days, the minister was singing a very different tune."

"There was a cloud over Catherine's marriage. But it was no bigger than a man's hand."

"And soon she would have vengeance in kind."

Da da da DUMMMM.

Second, there's supposition and speculation about motives and actions, based seemingly upon how Starkey thinks normal women feel and think and act, as if the actions of these very forceful and determined people weren't enough to speak for themselves. There is absolutely NO context -- as if a 16th century queen, or would-be queen, trying to save her life and sovereignty, would act the way a 21st century suburban person would act.

Third, he simply guesses at things!! And admits it! And then he uses his guesses to weave a fantasy of something that may have happened to explain something that did happen. A quick look at p. 419 -- not atypical -- will illustrate this tactic. Starkey sums it up himself by saying "It seems as likely as not." Really? Why?

This is a shameful effort by someone who is associated with Cambridge (what were they thinking at that university?) or by anyone who purports to be a serious historian. Even Publishers' Weekly had a hard time finding anything good to say about this book. Save your $$, or go get Allison Weir's or Antonia Frasier's book(s). Better written and much more exciting. Or buy a good novel.

21 of 28 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars One of the worst books that I've ever read, January 3, 2004

By	pmegan "pmegan" (Massachusetts) - See all my reviews

Now that David Starkey is famous, does this mean that neither he nor anyone else has to proof-read his work? All of the "history" in this book could easily be learned in a children's picture book on the subject, and the writing was just abominable. Mixed metaphors, poor grammar, wrong verb tenses, and not a complex sentence to be seen.

The research was poor and seems like it was done entierly by reading Antonia Frasier books and taking a class in psychology. He openly admits to making things up and is constantly putting words in his subjects' mouths: "That day in the spring of 1489 at Medina del Campo-- was it, perhaps, Catherine's earliest memory?" Who cares? Does it matter? Why make up an "earliest memory" for a character that you are purporting to write a biography of?

I am shocked at the number of positive reviews that this book has recieved. Who is writing them, anyway? I know that ballot-stuffing is a problem on Amazon, but how can anyone get though an 800 page book that reads like a second grade primer? Every third sentence begins with "And," "But," or "Actually," he makes up or mis-uses words on every page, the punctuation is abysmal, and the number of three word sentences is truly apalling. This is an actual example of his writing, not taken out of context:

"In the middle of the celebrations, howerver, came terrible news. The Infante Juan was seriously ill. Ferdinand rode furiously back to Valladolid. But Juan died."

If you are interested in this subject at all, go straight to the source and check out the Frasier book on the subject. For a slightly easier read, without dumbed-down content, try the Alison Weir. But do not, under any circumstances, buy this book for someone unless you want to purposely insult their intelligence. It is completely unreadable and offers EXTREMELY dubious history.

16 of 21 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Not scholarly, December 10, 2003

By	bill runyon (Indiana) - See all my reviews

No, sorry, but this work isn't based on scholarly research
as is suggested by the book's length and copious chapter notes.
The author takes far too much liberty with established facts and well-established theories based on hundreds of years of research by many scholars, and he is far too willing to toss aside all precedent because of his "feelings" or some such ideas.
His theories on the character of Henry's 5th wife, Catherine Howard, are a good example of the author's thinking. It is well established that Catherine had engaged in significant intimacies during her teen-age years when she was living with the Dowager Dutchess of Norfolk, and these meetings and trysts were attested to by her roommates and friends of that time. And, far worse, she met behind closed doors, during late night hours, with at least two men after she was married to King Henry, when everyone in the English-speaking world (as well as most of those in the French-speaking and Spanish-speaking worlds) knew such behavior would be considered treasonable. Of course she was young, and she was encouraged in her misdeeds by
both the 3rd Duke of Norfolk, her uncle, and Lady Rochford, because both of those relatives had their political motives regarding the King.
But her behavior and deeds are well known to historians, and we might have to wonder what prompted the author to take a contrary view. Did he uncover new documents? Make a new translation of original papers?
As to her behavior, he brushes that off by saying it was all due to her "...indiscriminate good nature..." Is that what it's called? Plus, he further dismisses her teen-age sexual
licentiousness by making the bald, unsupported statement: "Many, even most, Tudor girls had similarly murky pasts." But he does cite an "authority" for this view: Chapuys, the Spanish Ambassador to England. He doesn't remind the reader that the Spainard was reporting to the King of Spain, who hated Henry because of Henry's treatment of Catherine of Aragon, who happened to be the Spanish King's aunt.
As far as her later liaisons, which she tried keeping secret from King Henry, this author attributes all that long history to "Victorian prudes." You don't have to be much of a scholar to know that Catherine Howard's misconduct and brazen behavior
was well-documented long before there were any Victorians to write about it.
These examples of the few aspects of this one wife show rather clearly the casual attitude this writer has toward established historical fact, and once such poor scholarship is demonstrated,
it's difficult to take seriously rhe rest of his writing.
Anyone interested in this fascinating period of history will be
better served, and have a more enjoyable time, reading the histories of Alison Weir. She does the proper work, and she has
a very nice understanding of all aspects of that period, and her writing style is most enjoyable.
If your reading time is limited, grab a Weir book first.