The Other Boleyn Girl

The Other Boleyn Girl, is yet another historical fiction by Philippa Gregory. As the third novel in the ‘Tudor Court’ series, the novel explores exactly what the title states, ‘The Other Boleyn Girl’, Mary Boleyn, sister of Henry VIII’s infamous second wife, Anne Boleyn. In the novel, Gregory depicts part of the turbulent reign of England’s Henry VIII through Mary Boleyn’s eyes during her time in and out of court.

Already married to William Carey and barely 14, Mary Boleyn embarks on a several year affair with the King at the beginning of the novel, giving him both a daughter and a son, albeit both illegitimate. “Keep him coming forward but never let him think that you come forward yourself. He wants to feel that he is pursuing you, not that you are entrapping him. When he gives you the choice of coming forward or running away, like then—you must always run away. But don’t run too fast. Remember he has to catch you.” Despite only a year separating them in age, Mary is disastrously more naïve than Anne, who is cunning, intelligent and skilful in the art of seduction, earning the role as Mary’s adviser in the seduction of the King.

“I shall be dark and French and fashionable and difficult. And you shall be sweet and open and English and fair. What a pair we shall be! What man can resist us?”

Mary’s golden fair hair reflects her sweet and caring disposition. “I wanted the heat and the sweat and the passion of a man that I could love and trust. And I wanted to give myself to him: not for advantage, but for desire.” Mary’s decline begins when she falls in love with the King and thus begins to lose sight of the reason as to why she was being courted in the first place. Anne understands that “anyone can attract a man” and “the trick is to keep him,” and, more importantly, Anne understands that love is not important in seducing the King. She understands that “in this world ruled by men” the aim is to rise in status, and to bring her family with her.

The favour of the King is eventually tossed from Mary to Anne. “I have overturned the order. Nothing will ever be the same for any woman in this country again.” Anne bewitches King Henry into tearing the country apart in return for her love. In order to marry her, the King breaks with Rome and brings the Church of England under his control, all for Anne to give birth to a girl, Elizabeth, after promising him she would give him his coveted son. All of this leads to Anne’s demise.

“And then the sword came down like a flash of lightning, and then her head was off her body and the long rivalry between me and the other Boleyn girl was over.”

“Jane would be the next queen and her children, when she had them, would be the next princes or princesses. Or she might wait, as the other queens had waited, every month, desperate to know that she had conceived, knowing each month that it did not happen that Henry's love wore a little thinner, that his patience grew a little shorter. Or Anne's curse of death in childbed, and death to her son, might come true. I did not envy Jane Seymour. I had seen two queens married to King Henry and neither of them had much joy of it.”

By the end of the novel, Mary is evidently less naïve and more intelligent. She is the only Boleyn sibling with her head still attached to her body after the well-known demise of Anne and George. Her conscience, at first, would not allow her to desert her siblings, albeit her husband, William Carey, advises her to protect her children, especially her son, Henry, and the now motherless Princess Elizabeth.

AA

Stormclouds

Free from the stresses of exams now, I've been having a lot of fun reading some of the year 7s' efforts at writing historical fiction after their trip to Hever Castle (see previous post). Somewhat inspired by all this creativity, I've decided to post a bit of my own Tudor fiction here. This is, in all likelihood, going to be my final post on this blog, and so I no longer feel any embarrassment about my attempts at creative writing.

I wanted to explore some of the religious tensions of the late 1530s, so this is set at the spectacular event that was the christening of the future Edward VI. It's told from Archbishop Cranmer's point of view, and foreshadows his eventual martyrdom under the regime of Mary Tudor in 1556. Mary never really forgave Cranmer for his role in her father's divorce proceedings and the Royal Supremacy, and I wanted to explore their relationship a bit.

The whole story can be found here. 

Cromwell's Second Rise - The 'Wolf Hall' Phenomenon

Mark Rylance as Thomas Cromwell, in the BBC's upcoming adaptation (source)

With our TV listings this January jam-packed with Tudor dramas and documentaries, and new editions of Mantel’s books hitting the shelves, it seems that Thomas Cromwell is rising as fast and high in 2015 as he did in Henry VIII’s day. Cromwell has had his fair mix of good and bad press in historical dramas (as shown in Tracy Borman’s  recent article here) but it’s Mantel who’s really captured the public’s imagination.

Now, I’m fairly new to all this hullabaloo. His reign was what first got me interested in history, but for a long time, I avoided Henry VIII like the plague, thinking that he’s overrated and very ‘popular history’. It wasn’t Thomas Cromwell, or even Wolf Hall, that brought me back, shame-faced, into the Tudor fanbase, but now that I’m here, I’m buzzing about the upcoming BBC series, based on Mantel’s writings, as much as anyone else.

Discussing her books, Mantel has stated that what she writes is fiction woven around the facts, but that she tries to keep it as accurate as possible. That said, pinpoint historical accuracy is now being plugged as the Unique Selling Point of the BBC series. Both Mantel and director Peter Kaminsky have said that they envisioned it being filmed almost as a documentary from Cromwell’s point of view, and Dr Lucy Worsley has walked away from the set with her only criticism being that Jane Seymour (played by Kate Philipps, image here) is ‘too pretty’. (Dr Worsley’s article is here.) All this historical hype really does beg the question: how much should we trust the series?

I’m willing to take Dr Worsley’s word for it that the practical details are accurate (the costumes, ceremonies, use of cutlery, the state of the lawn, you name it), but having read Wolf Hall and seen both of the RSC productions, and I think it really does depend on the script and how the actors tackle it. Having seen him in various productions, I’m confident that Mark Rylance, playing our scheming Master Secretary, will deliver, and that Mark Gatiss’ Stephen Gardiner will be every bit as scathing and grandiose as the real bishop’s prose. Claire Foy, in her French hoods and stunning gowns, has already won me over as the ill-fated Anne Boleyn.

The problem is, I had the same compliments to make about the RSC production. It was stunningly acted. Yet there was something amiss. Mantel’s books capture the essence of most of the characters brilliantly, with just enough exaggeration to make them memorable. (How else is a casual reader to remember which Thomas is which? One quickly labels Cromwell, Wolsey, More, Howard, Boleyn and Cranmer as Our Tom, Cardinal Tom, Honest Tom, Old Tom, Monseigneur Tom and Quiet Tom.) The problem with the RSC production is that when you take away the subtleties of Mantel’s work, condensing two books into six hours, they quickly become caricatures. Lovely caricatures though they be in some cases, figures like Norfolk, Suffolk and George Boleyn really do draw the short straw. (Poor George always seems to draw the short straw, no matter who writes him. And his wife, for that matter.)

The thing is, the RSC production seems to have been aiming for comedy, in the first play at least. The BBC service isn’t. I worry for characters like Thomas More. His portrayal in the books is certainly no Man of All Seasons, and has drawn a great deal of criticism. I’m no expert on More, but I do like to see one who is less than saintly. In the RSC’s Wolf Hall, he comes across as incredibly harsh and self-centred. In the books, on the other hand, I feel a great deal of sympathy for him. The TV series is likely to bring some of that sympathy across, seeing as Margaret Roper – More’s much-loved daughter, who did not feature in the play – has been cast, but it will largely depend, I think, on the directing.

Ben Miles and John Ramm as Cromwell and More in the RSC's Wolf Hall (source)

On the other hand, I do know a fair bit about Thomas Cranmer, and I find it difficult to fault cautious, candid, politically naïve scholar we see in Mantel’s books. (One thing I will say though, to add to Lucy Worsley’s criticism of the TV casting, I am disheartened to see a bearded Cranmer at Anne Boleyn’s coronation (image here) when the unwritten rule was that good Catholic priests were clean-shaven. Only a minor niggle.) Giles Taylor’s interpretation in the RSC production was certainly endearing, but would probably look incredibly out of place in the BBC drama, and it could be difficult to get Cranmer’s subtle personality across without the aid of Mantel’s prose.

I think this – the removal of Mantel’s prose – is what’s most dangerous about both the RSC and BBC productions. Without the subtleties of her writing, and the brilliant insight we get into Cromwell, her flaws are much easier to notice. The misinterpretations of some of the Boleyns will be that much clearer, and other characters may be reduced to mere shadows, or villains, or saints. This is inevitable with any editing project as large as this, but in a production that has prided itself on its historical accuracy, it does set off a few alarm bells in me.

Where I think the strength of the TV production lies is in Cromwell himself. Rylance has shown himself willing to find the threads of comedy in everything in the past, tragedies included, but I trust him to play this part straight. What we get, therefore, is a Cromwell who still remains mysterious to us, who still begs us to ask whether he looks like a murderer. In Bring Up the Bodies (the book), when Cromwell is playing the ruthless schemer, we know him well enough to consider him as our ruthless schemer, and I think the TV series will help to bring that edge back.

I might post something once all six episodes have aired, but these are my thoughts so far.

Of course, the Tudor hype this January doesn’t begin and end with Wolf Hall. Tomorrow (the 10^th) at 9pm on BBC2 we have David Starkey teaming up with Lucy Worsley to present Britain’s Tudor Treasure: A Night at Hampton Court, to celebrate 500 years of the palace by reconstructing Edward VI’s christening. We also have documentaries later in the month about accidental Tudor deaths and Hans Holbein. Even if you don’t buy into historical fiction and period dramas, there’s still plenty to watch!

V.G

The Boleyn Inheritance

After watching ‘The other Boleyn Girl’, my interest for the Boleyn family has always been an awe-inspiring topic I constantly seek to learn more about, so its not surprising that I chose ‘The Boleyn Inheritance’. Although audiences may presume that this book solely focuses on the cliché and infamous relationship between Henry and Anne, it is not. This story revolves around three determined women who share one fate: Jane Boleyn, Katherine Howard and Anne of Cleves.

This book really did steal my attention from other fictional Tudor stories because unlike others, it unfolded all three women’s stories with their own point of view, especially Jane Rochford - commonly known as Jane Boleyn. The most intriguing part was to observe what Jane’s side of the story was and how she repeats her past years by instigating and scheming her way in the Tudor court and attempting to get her kinswoman (Katherine) upon the throne just to benefit herself.

Now turning the spotlight on Katherine, it wasn’t a wonder to me when I realized that she was all part of a plot to ascend the Queen’s throne by her uncle. The audience will emphasize with Katherine the most out of the three as she marries the 50 year old king and suffers the consequences of her adultery later on. Nevertheless, I genuinely disliked the way Gregory painted her in an egoistic manner and I know this book is not a hundred percent accurate but coming onto the throne at the age of fourteen is stretching it a bit to be honest…...

Anne in my judgment was somewhat of a 2D character as she had a mediocre role and not enough background history of herself and above everything, Gregory endlessly depicted her as a woman without any faults as the story progressed. 

But all in all, this is an inspiring read for its entertainment reasons and the way that Gregory uses three women’s voices to illustrate how their lives had been within the Tudor court, truly does amaze me.

UH

Two Steps Back? - The Six Articles, 1539

Another post from me about the Reformation, seeing as I’m still reading about it!

Although the practical effectiveness of the Six Articles, passed through parliament in 1539, can be debated, the Articles remain significant as a dramatic shift away from growing evangelicalism in the English Church. Perhaps even more significantly, the Articles were the first major example of Henry VIII taking an aggressively active role in the religion of his country. Henry had always sought a middle way, which is evident in the balanced appointment of clerics to doctrinal discussions and committees: it was generally an equal number of conservatives and evangelicals. The Six Articles follow this trend in that they were meant to eliminate controversy, but Henry’s involvement in the theological debates, rather than merely signing the finished document, was unprecedented.

Before 1539, the reformers had gained victories under the patronage of Anne Boleyn, and later with the 10 Articles and Bishops’ Book, which, although full of compromises, were a step in the right direction. Cromwell also pushed forward with his and Cranmer’s shared goal and made sure there was an English Bible in every parish church. The extremely conservative Six Articles therefore represented a U-turn in religious policy, reaffirming the key doctrines of the Catholic Church, including transubstantiation, clerical celibacy and the necessity of auricular confession. These orthodox affirmations resulted in Bishops Latimer and Shaxton – who had spoken out viciously against the Articles in the House of Lords – resigning their sees; yet another loss for the evangelical cause.

The Articles stated that:

1. Transubstantiation was the definitive Eucharistic doctrine of the Church (though this was only implied – transubstantiation was not explicitly mentioned).
2. Lay people should not receive both parts of the Eucharist (i.e. they could take the bread but not wine).
3. Priests could not marry.
4. Vows of chastity had to be strictly observed.
5. Private masses for both the living and the dead had to be continued.
6. Auricular confession was a necessity.

The Articles took three days to pass through parliament, much to the dismay of Cromwell, who had effectively been shoved to one side by Henry’s sudden assertiveness. The parliamentary session seems to have been only a formality, as the outcome had been clear from the start, and Cromwell and Cranmer could only look on helplessly as Henry’s conservative beliefs made their mark.

For Cranmer in particular, the third article was devastating. The Archbishop had secretly married the niece of a Lutheran theologian in 1532, and the accompanying penalty was death. It was perhaps through concern for his friend that Cromwell amended the article at the last minute to include only known clerical marriages. Nevertheless, the passing of the Articles through Parliament forced Cranmer to send his wife and daughter back to Germany. Henry VIII himself doesn’t seem to have quizzed Cranmer on his marital state until 1543, but he was aware that his chaplain’s conscience was troubled by the acts: he gave Cranmer permission to miss the last day of the vote (which Cranmer refused to do) and later held a feast in the archbishop’s honour at Lambeth.

The Articles can also be seen as a clear shift in diplomatic strategy. With the support of Henry and the continental reformer, Martin Bucer, theologians had received a German Lutheran delegation at Lambeth, partly in an attempt to strengthen ties with the League of Schmalkalden. The key reason for this was the Imperial-French truce, presenting the possibility of French-Imperial-papal alliance against Henry. When the delegation refused to make enough concessions, Henry changed tactics, and seems to have favoured appeasing the Catholics instead. Although not technically foreign policy, as it was governed by England, Calais also proved to be a key stimulant: dissent was growing within the upper secular classes against Archbishop Cranmer’s more outspoken preachers there, which seems to have unnerved Henry about the speed and possible radicalism of reform. Threats from home, therefore, were more important than a possible attack from abroad, especially with the memory of the Pilgrimage of Grace weighing heavily in people’s minds.

The Articles, however, were not a complete loss for the evangelical cause. Even the point about transubstantiation was vague. The reformers at this stage, who had not yet lost their belief in the true presence in the Eucharist, could claim that the Articles still followed their own doctrine, even if the language was aggressively conservative. Cromwell also managed to delay the appointment of commissions and some of the articles either took a long time to enforce, or the initiatives were dropped. In Henry’s more happily evangelical mood following Cromwell’s fall a year later, he lifted the death penalty for married priests (no doubt with sighs of relief from Cranmer) and dropped charges on the 200 or so evangelical Londoners who had been rounded up by Bishop Bonner’s men. The changes the Articles made, therefore, were significant in what they said, rather than what they did to the English Church in practice.

V.G

BBC Tudor Programmes on YouTube

If you missed the excellent season of BBC documentaries on the Tudors that was on over the last few weeks, many of the programmes have made it onto YouTube. There are a few key links below. You may also find the BBC's Tudors page of interest.

• Henry VII: Winter King
• The Last Days of Anne Boleyn
• Henry VIII's Enforcer: The Rise and Fall of Thomas Cromwell
• William Tyndale: The Most Dangerous Man in England
• The Time Traveller's Guide to Elizabethan England

Plus here are some other programmes

David Starkey's Documentaries:

• The Six Wives of Henry VIII
• Henry VIII: King and Emperor
• The Children of Henry VIII
• Elizabeth

Simon Schama's History of Britain

• A History of Britain: "Burning Convictions" (1500-1558)
• A History of Britain: "The Body of the Queen" (1558-1603)

Other Tudor Programmes

• The Wars of the Roses
• Henry VIII: Patron or Plunderer? Part 1
• Henry VIII: Patron or Plunderer? Part 2 (includes a visit to Nonsuch Park!)
• Time Team: Henry VIII's Lost Palaces (includes Nonsuch Palace)
• The Supersizers go...Elizabethan (concentrating on food from the period)
• The Other Boleyn Girl (BBC version)
• Mary Queen of Scots (The 1971 Film)
• Mary Tudor (Channel 5 "Evil" Series)

Please let us know if any of the links do not work as programmes are often removed from YouTube. Please also tell us if you find anything else of interest and we will add it to the list!

Divorced, Beheaded, Died, Divorced, Beheaded, Survived...

Although I haven't got into the same habit of some of the other bloggers of ending my articles with my initials, I reckon it's pretty obvious who I am as my articles seem to carry a familiar theme: the Tudors. Yep, you lucky things, it's me again. And, as some of you brighter buttons may have notice from the title, this article will continue with that trend. If i'm perfectly honest with you, I don't even know why i'm so drawn to the Tudor - my main interest in history is really the 'modern world', but something about them really draws me in. I suppose I probably get it directly from my Nan, who introduced me as a small child to the world of the Tudors, and, being an extremely weird child (not much changes), I was immediately enthralled by them: the 9 year old king Edward (if he could be king at nine, why couldn't I be queen at seven?), the infamous 'bloody Mary',  the first truly popular Tudor Elizabeth, and the impossible king, Henry VII. But, if i'm honest, I was completely enraptured the first time my Nan told me about Henry VIII. On the surface, he doesn't seem like the most stable of people, to say the least, and to be honest with you, I was amazed by a king so fat that apparently he couldn't climb the stairs of his palace. I already warned you I was a weird child... So, here is the story of my favorite Henry, and if the Tudor-related articles are beginning to bore you, blame my Nan.

Henry started off with controversy, really. After the death of his brother, instead of looking around for a wife, he just married his brothers widow, which must have looked a little dodgy at the time. The laziness when it came to searching out a suitable lady extended to ruling England, as his close mate Thomas Wolsey basically ruled for him, and was soon elevated to Lord Chancellor, which is pretty nifty job to have, if you ask me.  His first battle plans to invade France sunk like a lead balloon as they were both expensive and unsuccessful, but between Henry and Wolsey a Scottish invasion was beaten off, and Henry gained the title 'father of the royal navy', for increasing the navy by ten times.

However, at the time, failure to produce a male heir was basically paramount to destroying your dynasty, and poor old Catherine of Aragon wasn't going to be popping out sprogs any more at the age of 40. So, like every great king, Henry decided it was time to get himself a new woman, and divorced Catherine, despite the fact that it didn't gain him any brownie points with anyone. His new woman, he decided, was to be Anne Boleyn, and we all know how THAT ended when she couldn't have the precious son Henry so dearly wanted. So. Wife number two and still no luck... I like to think that a public 'lock of your daughters' memo circulated after Anne Boleyn's neck parted company with her head, although clearly a certain Mr Seymour didn't get one. Wife number three, here we come: you lucky, lucky woman, Jane Seymour. Finally, Jane became pregnant with a son, and it's said that Henry genuinely loved her, so all was calm and peaceful... But obviously that would be boring, so in childbirth Jane Seymour died. Now, we couldn't leave Henry without a woman, could we? Wife Four, Anne of Cleves, who sets a record for Henry's shortest marriage lasting only a few months before Henry divorced her and chopped off the head of Thomas Cromwell, who suggested the match, for good measure. The next lucky woman was Catherine Howard, who was married to Henry during the period in which he was sending armies left right and center with no actual rewards. Henry, who was probably getting a bit bored of only having one wife for over a year, decided that it was about time for the guillotine to be dusted off and used again. Bye bye wife five.

So. The last and luckiest of the women. The one who was still married to Henry when he died. Catherine Parr. She acted as a nurse to Henry, and after his death almost faded into the background as he was succeeded by Edward and buried next to Jane Seymour.

So there we are. The original womanizer. I'd love to be able to tell you that the Tudor thing would stop soon, but I don't lie. So, until next time!

P.S: Here are those all-important initials --> E.C 

Hilary Mantel on Anne Boleyn

Hilary Mantel, who won the Booker Prize with "Wolf Hall", her story of Thomas Cromwell and the Tudor court, has now written a sequel, "Bringing up the Bodies", which focuses on the introduction of Jane Seymour to the court and the unravelling of Henry VIII's relationship with Anne Boleyn. You can read a review of the new book here, and also an excellent article by Mantel on Anne Boleyn ("Witch, bitch, temptress, feminist") and the public's perception of her.

Who was the best Tudor?

The main issue in this month's BBC History magazine is the debate over the importance of the Tudors and features eminent historians debating each Tudor king and queen. It starts with Steve Gunn's justification of the importance of Henry VII, much to a certain teacher's delight! You can read the articles here and the magazine itself will soon be put in the Sixth Form study room. They have also included podcasts of each debate which will be invaluable to A-level students.

Mary Seymour

Tudor historians may know that shortly after the death of Henry VIII, his last wife Katharine Parr married Thomas Seymour (her fourth husband), uncle of Edward VI and brother of his Protector, Edward Seymour. Soon after that she became pregnant and on 30 August 1548 gave birth to a daughter, Mary. But tragedy would soon follow. After the birth, Katharine developed puerperal fever, very common at this time amongst new mothers, and died on 5 September. Thomas Seymour, meanwhile, had already begun an unfortunately flirtatious relationship with Elizabeth Tudor and had become increasingly critical of his brother's rule over the country. This led to a plot to kidnap Edward and raise the country into rebellion. The outcome was inevitable and he was excecuted for treason on 17 March 1549.

So poor Mary had lost both her parents within the first 7 months of her life. But what happened to her after that? It has always been something of a mystery but this History Today article believes it has solved it. A poem was discovered in the archives of Sudely Castle, the home of Thomas Seymour and Mary's place of birth. It reads:

I whom at the cost
Of her own life
My queenly mother
Bore with the pangs of labour
Sleep under this marble
An unfit traveller.

So it would appear that poor Mary probably died in childhood, soon after her parents, probably under the guardianship of the Duchess of Suffolk, who had been reluctant to take her in the first place. A sad end for this tragic family.

Nonsuch Palace up for sale

A watercolour of Nonsuch Palace has been put up for sale by Christies, the auction house. It is one of the most realistic pictures of the palace available (it was only ever painted four times) and has rarely been seen in public. Sadly we can't afford it in the history department as it is expected to reach £1.2 million when it goes on sale...

Work began on the palace in 1538, with Henry VIII keen to copy some of his French rival Francis I's palaces. It wasn't completed in his lifetime, and his successors did not have the funds to maintain it properly. The London Historian's Blog describes it as a "white elephant which nonetheless must have been magnificent to behold."

There is little to see of the palace in Nonsuch Park today, but marker posts show where it stood, and you can see the "dip" in the path where its entrance once was. Not far away is the site of the banqueting house, a small building where Elizabeth and others would have been entertained after a busy day's hunting, perhaps even by Shakespeare himself...

Starkey on Royal Portraits

Channel 4 showed an excellent programme last night called "The Genius of British Art". It was presented by David Starkey and focused on royal portraiture, using Hans Holbein's images of the Tudors as its starting point to examine the way portraits have been used to convey power and other messages about the monarch to their viewers. The first 20 minutes are particularly worth watching, with some excellent analysis of portraits of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I. You also get to see Starkey doing an impression of his old university tutor, the famously grumpy Geoffrey Elton.

Henry Summaries

Here is a space for 12E to leave their summaries on some of the past AS Questions for Unit 1B (England 1483-1529). Good luck everybody!

Revision Materials

It will soon be time for Years 11, 12 and 13 to go on study leave, and hopefully Nonsuch HP can be of help for the final preparations for the exams. The History Dept and Politics Dept blogs contain links to lists of questions and mark schemes. Also make the most of Fronter where you can find material specific to your classes.

The Exam Board websites are quite helpful. Here are some links to try.

AQA GCSE History
2009 Paper 1 Question Paper and Mark Scheme
2009 Paper 2 Question Paper and Mark Scheme

AQA AS History
Unit 1B (Henry) Specimen Question Paper and Mark Scheme
Unit 2S (Liberal Democracies) Question Paper and Mark Scheme

AQA A2 History
Unit 3B (Elizabeth) Specimen Question Paper and Mark Scheme

Edexcel A-Level Politics Resources Area (This is not as helpful a website as many downloads are "secure" but it can give you a general idea of what to expect.) The AS Unit 1 question paper and markscheme are available.

If you would like other materials to be added or need further guidance on what to look for on these websites please leave a comment below and we will see what can be done.

John Guy

John Guy's website has been mentioned before on Nonsuch HP. It includes this article on historians' views on Elizabeth and politics which is particularly useful for Year 13s gathering interpretations. There are also notes on Elizabeth and religion, the mid-tudor crisis and the role of faction amongst others.

Year 12s will find useful articles on Henry VII's reputation and foreign policy plus the significance of Wolsey, his domestic and foreign policies, and his fall.

Mixed signals

The weekend has thrown up two contrasting stories about the state of History at the moment. The Booker prize shortlist has been announced and is entirely made up of historical fiction, including "Wolf Hall",Hilary Mantel's account of the rise of Thomas Cromwell. Clearly there remains a great interest in popular history within the general public and amongst more serious literary figures.

However, the same edition of the Observer also announced that the teaching of history as a standalone subject is declining, with 30% of schools now combining it with other subjects to create "humanities" lessons or similar. The Historical Association, which organised the report, has announced that "History faces Extinction" unless action is taken. (Futher comment from the editor of History Today here)

Is this an exaggeration? Should history teachers be worried? Or will the British public always have a fascination with the past, whatever they learn at school?

Henry VIII from a US Perspective

Time Magazine has published "10 things you didn't know about Henry VIII". The site is rather fussily put together, but there is some good information buried in there (e.g. Henry had 5 sets of bagpipes, he suggested that those who committed murder by poison be boiled to death, he banned betting after his soldiers lost too much money.)
It also gives you a good insight into how America views him - are there any noticeable differences between this and the British perspective?

Henry takes to the water

Henry VIII took to the water at the weekend in a recreation of a river pageant to the 500th anniversary of his accession. More photos and video here.

Also, BBC Four is showing "Henry VIII - Patron or Plunderer?" at the moment. More details and iPlayer Links here.

Henry VIII Exhibition

This Blog leads you to plenty of interesting features linked to the Henry VIII exhibition at the British Library. These include a chance to analyse Henry's handwriting and to read his prayer book, which includes the notes and doodles written in the margin.

Henry VIII Exhibition review

A review of the excellent exhibition plus a video comment from David Starkey! See here.