Henry VIII

The portrait of a monarchy in crisis, this historical drama concerns the famous king's efforts to secure a divorce from his dignified and popular queen in order to marry an enchanting courtesan and produce a male heir. The play ranks among Shakespeare's most sumptuous and spectacular works, offering a splendid pageant of masques and royal ceremony. Occasional lapses in historical accuracy are compensated for by keen psychological and political insights, vivid characterizations, and evocative language. Possibly the last of Shakespeare's dramas, Henry VIII was almost certainly co-written with John Fletcher. It is a play of farewells ― to the world, to life, to power ― in which major historical characters make memorable exits, show more including Cardinal Wolsey's rueful observation: "Had I but served my God with half the zeal/I served my king, he would not in mine age/Have left me naked to mine enemies. " Nevertheless, the play ends in triumph and hopeful expectations with the prophecy of the coming Elizabethan age. show less

Previously, things I've read covering the historically crucial events surrounding Henry VIII's divorce and subsequent break from the Catholic Church have focused on Wolsey, More, Cromwell and Henry himself, ignoring Katherine, whom Henry is dumping in favour of Anne Boleyn. This is different: Thomas More is conspicuous by his absence - he's not even name-dropped - and Katherine is very much front and centre of the middle part of the play.

Katherine and Wolsey are presented as Tragic figures: Katherine as undeserving victim, powerless but eloquent in her own, ultimately futile defence. Wolsey as worldly schemer for Rome and his own self-aggrandisement who ultimately repents, apparently sincerely and with great humility, when caught show more conspiring against the divorce and lining his own pockets from the national Treasury.

What of Henry? He reminds me of Julius Caesar; the instigator of the action but really not the dramatic lead. Intrigue, plots, chaos and death swirl around him but he remains mostly a cypher. He doesn't die half way through, like Caesar, of course. Instead he lives on to see Anne Boleyn betray his hopes by giving birth to a daughter.

That daughter is prophetically praised in the final scene; the baby that will become the legendary Virgin Queen of Shakespeare's day and save Britain from Spain, Rome, all and sundry...

How much of the Tudor idolatry was merely political expediency is open to question, given the extremely sympathetic treatment of Katherine, the fact that Shakespeare was brought up in a Catholic household and the lack of any unequivocal statement about Will's own religious leanings.

The play impresses more by way of the characterisation and eloquence of Wolsey and Katherine than it does as a coherent drama as a whole. show less

William Shakespeare's last English history play reads depressingly as if the magnificent Henriad had not existed. Thematically and stylistically it is a companion piece to Shakespeare's Wars of the Roses plays from the dawn of his career as a playwright. Like H VI 1-3 this is written in collaboration. If this is a sequel to RIII then it is a very mediocre one. The characters of Katherine and Wolsey are the main - in fact the only - highlights of the play. In sum the drama appears a weak pretext for depicting a Grand Pageant for the Tudor succession which backfired (literally when the Globe was set on fire by a stage cannon).

Henry has decided to divorce his first wife, Katherine, after twenty years of marriage, in order to marry Anne Bullen. At his side is the manipulative Cardinal Wolsey, common born yet with the King wrapped around his finger. Though Katherine pleads with her husband, Wolsey is instrumental in her downfall, and in the execution of the Duke of Buckingham, accused of treasonous gossip. The whole court holds its breath waiting for the day the King will realize he's been Wolsey's puppet.

Clearly written to be performed for Elizabeth I, Shakespeare is currying favor. Henry VIII is a man who was manipulated into treating Katherine badly, and who rejoiced that Anne had given birth to a daughter (ha!). Anne is a sweet maiden who worries about show more Katherine, and the play ends with a gushing speech about Elizabeth herself. This probably won't make anyone's list of the best of Shakespeare, but it is interesting and there are some good scenes, such as Katherine ripping into Wolsey. show less

I feel like there's diminishing returns in these last few "Shakespeare and friends" works. This one was an awful lot of politics (the boring kind), a whole lotta telling, and almost everything important happening off-stage.

That said, the scene where Cardinal Wosley's scheming is revealed and he realizes he's lost the favour of King Henry, and ultimately sends Cromwell away? Brilliantly done.

Overall, however, not my favourite. Nope, not by a long shot.

Shakespeare's "Henry VIII" is best remembered as the play that was on stage when the Globe Theater burned down. There's a reason that's what it's known for.... the play itself really doesn't hold up well to the bard's more famous works.

Rife with historical inaccuracies, most of the action takes place off stage, so you just hear characters talking about it. (Yeah, I didn't like it when Hilary Mantel did this either.) It was the Elizabethan age, so of course Shakespeare makes the birth of Queen Elizabeth something like the second coming and is mostly laudatory about her mother Anne Boleyn.

There really isn't much that's great about this one.

Actually the version in the Norton Histories [b:The Norton Shakespeare, Based on the Oxford Edition: Histories|3862365|The Norton Shakespeare, Based on the Oxford Edition Histories (Norton Shakespeare)|Stephen Greenblatt|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1390062413s/3862365.jpg|21929509], not the Arden.

On the surface, All is True is a puff piece written to suck up to King James I. The ending certainly gives that impression, as Elizabeth is christened and the archbishop gives forth a prophecy of her future greatness and that of the male heirs that, childless, she will miraculously produce.

But an early patron, a descendant of Buckingham, walked out at the scene where his ancestor was lead to the Tower (and thence to execution). Cardinal show more Wolsey, a scheming villain if ever there was one, receives his due comeuppance early on -- and his Protestant successor is nearly run to the Tower himself, by the same (Catholic) nobles that had just so deservedly done in Wolsey.

Above this all is Henry, allowing injustice to thrive when it suits him, halting it at his pleasure. Being king, he can do no wrong, and his perfection is lauded by all (though they do, toward the end, start to address him as "My dread King") -- yet clearly he is the cause of the suffering and strife that runs throughout the play.

Are his pronouncements and doings mere whims? Is he, like Wolsey, hatching schemes which persistently go awry? Or does a deep-seated hatred of his fellow man cause him to wreak such havoc?

The play, alas, gives us no answer. This is much more "The Birth of Elizabeth" than it is any portrait of Henry VIII, and that is what makes it approach mediocrity. So much plotting and intrigue, all leading up to a lackluster finish. show less