It is a bit difficult to rate this book, in my opinion, as it has both intriguing insights and glaring errors.
As such, I’m rating it a 2.5.
Let’s discuss.
The text is bookended with discussions of “the ghost of Hampton Court”. Although the author does mention it is a “myth” she spends quite a bit of time banging on about it, relishing the details etc. Any historian can tell you-at the time (and even now) there IS NO direct passage from the t chambers to the King’s chapel.
I was mystified as to why Denny left the quote discussing the Mary Rose in archaic text, as it’s impossible to comprehend. (Page 26).
“Deddeshares demi at 5s a mount by the seid tyme”.
Seriously, she couldn’t be bothered to translate and perhaps expand on what this person was discussing?
Then she turns my poor opinion on its head by flat out stating the Tudors had sister the crown by conspiracy and invasion-something many historians balk at confronting.
She also delves into the manipulation and lies of Catherine of Aragon, SO often depicted not only by historians but especially by the media as a saint, the long suffering, chaste and devoted first wife of Henry.
She wasn’t. And people seem to forget, gloss over or utterly refute the facts that we have ample evidence of her lies not only to the King and his council, but her own father.
She also trounces on the sacrificial lamb myth of Jane Seymour, which I have never seen another historian dare to do. Because she died in childbirth, she has been canonized as an almost mythological, maternal figure next to the Virgin Mary herself.
That she happily had relations with the King, with Anne pregnant and in the same household, as well as being formally betrothed him the day after Anne’s execution (all the while being a maid in Anne’s Ken household) speaks volumes.
Often Anne herself is slandered and denigrated for such things (although she resisted his advances and flat out told him she wasn’t interested. For years.), but we never see the same lens placed onto saintly Jane, the sweet, blonde martyr.
Denny takes the commonly held stance that Katherine was very young, only approx 15 at her marriage to the King. While this is, of course, possible-I find it out of character and therefore odd.
Henry always preferred mature, intelligent women. His first wife, Catherine, was significantly older than he. Anne Boleyn was a mature woman in her 20’s, highly intelligent and capable. Jane Seymour and Katherine Parr were likewise mature. (Anne of Cleves was also, but I leave this out as it was an arranged marriage).
Suddenly to be attracted to a girl young enough to be his granddaughter seems wildly out of character.
Page 142 she mentions “tight corsets”. Corsets were in fact, not invented yet and would not be for hundreds of years.
Corsets only became available in the mid 19th century . Previous to that were “stays”, and in Henry’s time, not even those were used. A “pair of bodies” is the closest we can come to and that was worn by Elizabeth I, a generation later.
Corsets couldn’t be used-because metal grommets (which make them possible) were not invented yet. Holes or grommets for lacing were hand sewn, and NOT capable of being pulled tightly.
Denny also seems to think medieval people stank, which is wildly inaccurate. People of the time while wildly concerned about smells and hygienic as they literally believe that diseases like travel through the air-and noxious smells carried disease. That excuse for Anne of Cleves’ rejection is entirely inaccurate and false.
Again, we encounter the idea of Henry’s size. He was over 6 feet, and authors exclaim over his “huge, piggy and disgusting weight” -when discussing his 54 inch waist. He was SO fat, thry claim, he had to be carried in a chair.
Well, no.
54 inches is a husky size, indeed, but not outrageously fat. Try this. Get a cloth tape measure and measure out 54 inches. Make a circle. It’s MUCH smaller than we are led to believe. Many tv actors are far beyond this size, but thry can walk just fine.
He couldn’t walk because his leg has a seething, often infected, open would oozing pus constantly and he was in agony. I would think that would be obvious.
But me cause he was a tyrant, with multiple terrifying qualities, the “excessive fatness” has become a physical embodiment of how we view his personality.
She waxes long on the “King’s table” and the number of dishes served, insinuating THAT is why he was so gross and disgustingly obese. Except….that was typical of English nobility. Nobody expected you to eat ALL the dishes, for heavens sake.
Then she redeems herself with a fascinating theory on Henry Fitzroy. I have NEVER heard much about him, other than he died young. Many people did. But the fact that he was so healthy, robust,attending parliament to make him heir-then suddenly sick and dead 3 days later is hugely convenient.
That an autopsy was not allowed, neither was a procession or funeral observation…..
Denny claims a Holbein portrait of Katherine (page 175)-however, we know no surviving portrait of her exists, and it was likely a misidentified portrait of Jane Seymour. As this was written 20 years ago, perhaps that is the explanation.
Another inaccurate statement is that rancid meats flavour were disguised by spices. This is…something SO wrong it makes me wonder about her research, as even I knew in primary school this was inaccurate.
Spices were a status symbol and HUGELY expensive. Nobody is going to use the equivalent of a 1500$ spice to cover up the rancid taste and smell of a 2$ roast.
This idea has been thoroughly debunked and has been for ages. Frankly I find the only people regurgitating it are those that get their history from American tv shows.
You have to wonder about the intelligence of Durham and Culpeper, boasting about sexual escapades and plight truths after what had happened with Anne Boleyn and her supposed “lovers”…
That it was Chapuys that started the runout that Katherine practiced with the block the night before her execution makes it entirely suspect. He is possibly one of the most unreliable sources in history.
Denny misrepresents the death of James V of Scotland, stating he died before his daughter was born.
In fact he died afterward.
So while this book raises some good points, there is far too much mythology related as fact, or purely false claims for me to give it a higher rating.