Tudors: The History of England from Henry VIII to Elizabeth I

The History of England #2

by Peter Ackroyd

From Henry VIII's cataclysmic break with Rome to the epic rule of Elizabeth I, the age of the Tudors comes to vivid life in audio.

Peter Ackroyd, one of Britain's most acclaimed writers, brings the age of the Tudors to vivid life in this monumental audiobook in his History of England series, charting the course of English history from Henry VIII's cataclysmic break with Rome to the epic rule of Elizabeth I.

Rich in detail and atmosphere, Tudors is the story of Henry VIII's relentless pursuit of both the perfect wife and the perfect heir; of how the brief royal reign of the teenage king, Edward VI, gave way to the violent reimposition of Catholicism and the stench of bonfires under "Bloody Mary". It tells, too, of the long reign of Elizabeth I, which, though marked by civil strife, plots against her, and even an invasion force, finally brought stability.

Above all it is the story of the English Reformation and the making of the Anglican Church. At the beginning of the sixteenth century, England was still largely feudal and looked to Rome for direction; at its end it was a country where good governance was the duty of the state, not the church, and where men and women began to look to themselves for answers rather than to those who ruled them.

©2012 Peter Ackroyd (P)2015 Blackstone Audio, Inc.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, British Literature, Tudor Period, Biography, Historical, Audiobook

528 pages, Kindle Edition

First published September 13, 2012

About the author

Peter Ackroyd CBE is an English novelist and biographer with a particular interest in the history and culture of London.

Peter Ackroyd's mother worked in the personnel department of an engineering firm, his father having left the family home when Ackroyd was a baby. He was reading newspapers by the age of 5 and, at 9, wrote a play about Guy Fawkes. Reputedly, he first realized he was gay at the age of 7.

Ackroyd was educated at St. Benedict's, Ealing and at Clare College, Cambridge, from which he graduated with a double first in English. In 1972, he was a Mellon Fellow at Yale University in the United States. The result of this fellowship was Ackroyd's Notes for a New Culture, written when he was only 22 and eventually published in 1976. The title, a playful echo of T. S. Eliot's Notes Towards the Definition of Culture (1948), was an early indication of Ackroyd's penchant for creatively exploring and reexamining the works of other London-based writers.

Ackroyd's literary career began with poetry, including such works as London Lickpenny (1973) and The Diversions of Purley (1987). He later moved into fiction and has become an acclaimed author, winning the 1998 James Tait Black Memorial Prize for the biography Thomas More and being shortlisted for the Booker Prize in 1987.

Ackroyd worked at The Spectator magazine between 1973 and 1977 and became joint managing editor in 1978. In 1982 he published The Great Fire of London, his first novel. This novel deals with one of Ackroyd's great heroes, Charles Dickens, and is a reworking of Little Dorrit. The novel set the stage for the long sequence of novels Ackroyd has produced since, all of which deal in some way with the complex interaction of time and space, and what Ackroyd calls "the spirit of place". It is also the first in a sequence of novels of London, through which he traces the changing, but curiously consistent nature of the city. Often this theme is explored through the city's artists, and especially its writers.

Ackroyd has always shown a great interest in the city of London, and one of his best known works, London: The Biography, is an extensive and thorough discussion of London through the ages.

His fascination with London literary and artistic figures is also displayed in the sequence of biographies he has produced of Ezra Pound (1980), T. S. Eliot (1984), Charles Dickens (1990), William Blake (1995), Thomas More (1998), Chaucer (2004), William Shakespeare (2005), and J. M. W. Turner. The city itself stands astride all these works, as it does in the fiction.

From 2003 to 2005, Ackroyd wrote a six-book non-fiction series (Voyages Through Time), intended for readers as young as eight. This was his first work for children. The critically acclaimed series is an extensive narrative of key periods in world history.

Early in his career, Ackroyd was nominated a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature in 1984 and, as well as producing fiction, biography and other literary works, is also a regular radio and television broadcaster and book critic.

In the New Year's honours list of 2003, Ackroyd was awarded the CBE.

Reviews

[Jayson · Rating 4 out of 5]

(A-) 81% | Very Good
Notes: Views the period through bifocals of religion and succession, which limits its subject matter but focuses its narrative.

[Christine · Rating 5 out of 5]

Reread notes-
The book does hold up. It's great that Ackroyd can seem to like/feel sorry for all the wives, without attacking one or the other. He also seems to think Mary I got a bit of a raw deal. He respects Mary Queen of Scots use of playacting, but he doesn't seem to like her.

Still enjoyable.

Older Review
Disclaimer: Read via Netgalley. I am also an Ackroyd fan girl.

Why do we need another book about the big gun Tudors? You might as well ask why we need another book about Shakespeare for the answer to both questions is the same.
Because Peter Ackroyd wrote it.
Okay that’s a bit flippant, even if it is true.

This book is Ackroyd’s second volume in his history of England. Despite its seemingly heft, it flows very quickly. While Ackroyd focuses on the big events – Henry’s love life, Elizabeth and Mary – he uses them to highlight the heavier and perhaps more important issue that circulates though England during the time of the Tudors. The English Reformation.

In many ways when talking about the Tudors, writers tend to fall into patterns. Elizabeth I is the great one, Henry is the great scary ogre one, Edward is the one who dies young so we really don’t want to say anything either way, and Mary is Bloody, but we might feel a little sorry for her (maybe, just a little). Ackroyd doesn’t use these board strokes. He seems to understand Henry VIII without the slightly weird quasi hero worship that David Starkey shows for the monarch. He isn’t fearful to show a slight pity for Mary and then points out, correctly, that the historian should be careful about judgments using today’s standards, that is impossible to fully understand the time period no matter how much the historian reads and studies. Of course, he doesn’t gloss over the numbers either, but he does place them in the time by comparing Mary to both her sister and her father. He even makes Edward into something more than an insufferable brat. If you blink, you miss Jane Grey. Of course, Ackroyd worships at the altar of Elizabeth, but it isn’t a blind hero worship. He also has one of the better sequences on the whole Catholic questions in Elizabeth’s reign. Then he points out the fact that Catholics wouldn’t be the only ones examined.

Ackroyd isn’t a partisan of Mary Queen of Scots whom his description makes the reader think of a black widow in the center of web, even if Ackroyd doesn’t use those exact words. He doesn’t sink to the question of did she know about Dudley debate. Considering the purpose of the book this would be impossible. It also highlights one of the strong points of this book – a novice or a long time reader/student of the time period can enjoy it. You don’t need to have any background knowledge to read the book, but having the background knowledge doesn’t make the book feel redundant.

The second reason to read this book is Ackroyd’s writing. There is the subtle Ackroyd remark when it comes to the birth of James I and VI, and the rumors of his parentage. But more importantly there are those absolutely stunning sentences of his that really make you think, such as his description of Elizabeth and her councilors, “It was the central dilemma of her reign, with the strength and solitariness of one woman pitched against a phalanx of men” (350-351). There are also the little touches – a passage about a carriage that mirrors a marriage, a wristwatch. The book is simply a pleasure to read.

[Lyn Elliott · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you’ve ever wondered about the origins of mistrusts and hatreds between Catholic and Protestants in England, this is a good place to start.

The 'great theme' of this book is the Reformation of the church in England. At the beginning of Henry VIII's reign (1509-1547) the Church in England was entirely Catholic, its forms of organisation and worship essentially medieval. The Pope in Rome held supreme authority, the Church lords and institutions held great lands and treasures, thousands of men and women lived religious lives as monks and nuns, and the monasteries and convents provided what we would now call social services like relief for the poor and medical care.

Henry VIII began the process of breaking away from Rome for political and dynastic reasons, not because he was swayed by the new teachings of Luther or Calvin. By the end of his reign, the monasteries were destroyed, much of the church lands and treasure confiscated and the monarch was head of the Church in England.

The Mass was said in English, not Latin. An authorised translation of the Bible into English was placed in all churches. For the first time people could understand the words of the religious services and engage with the scriptures themselves.

Powerful theologians such as Thomas Cranmer worked on standardised forms of liturgy which were to be used in all churches throughout England.
The Book of Common Prayer effectively set the doctrine and liturgy of the Church of England for the future.

The shifts of religious practice, decreed from the centre, were fiercely resisted. Rebellions broke out. Charges of heresy were levelled by each side against the other; when religion was so tightly tied to politics and power, being declared a heretic could be seen as treason. The punishment for heresy was burning at the stake; that for treason was to be hung, drawn and quartered (no, I’m not going into details), or beheaded if you were an aristocrat.

Each of the Tudor monarchs approached religion in different ways. Henry’s son Edward VI ruled only for a few years, but during that time England shifted significantly to the Calvinist position. A new Treason Act was introduced in 1563, passed specifically to protect the religious changes; it was a ‘considered a serious offence question the royal supremacy or to dissent from the articles of faith that the English Church now enjoined’.

After Edward’s early death, his deeply conservative Catholic eldest sister, Mary, came to the throne. Under her rule, Protestants were ruthlessly pursued and horrifying numbers were burned at the stake as heretics.

Elizabeth followed. A Protestant herself, she ended the burnings for heresy, but many were executed for treason for plotting her overthrow. During her reign, the Anglican doctrine settled down with ‘studied vagueness or ambiguity’, centring around piety rather than doctrine. By the beginning of the 17th century, Ackroyd says, England was no longer Catholic, though the nature of its Protestantism was not clear cut.

Separated from Catholic Europe, the idea of Englishness began to form during this period, and Catholics were excluded from it under the Protestant regimes.

Ackroyd remarks that we can see ‘the enduring effects of the Reformation in the emphasis upon the individual rather than the community’. The idea of good governance emerged, with the state at different levels having a role in social and economic policy.

This is mostly a history of the connections between religion and politics, both within England itself and in its international relations. Social and economic issues are touched on as part of the overall background against which his central dramas are played out.

It says a great deal for Ackroyd's fluent, easy style, that I read this 470 page history in just three days. As befits a good storyteller, he has a clear view of the main story line he wants to follow, and achieves it with a strong narrative livened by incidental detail and quotes perfectly chosen to make a point.

I missed end-note references, though I understand why he hasn't included them. The index is pretty good.

[Sarah (Presto agitato) · Rating 4 out of 5]

Peter Ackroyd’s Tudors is popular history that goes down easy. Tudors is the second volume of Ackroyd’s history of England, taking us from Henry VIII through Elizabeth I. It’s a complicated period, replete with monarchs with larger-than-life personalities, scheming companions and spouses, attempted assassinations and usurpations, endless wars, and religious upheaval that pulled the country from one extreme to the other with every change in ruler while courtiers scrambled for position. With the wealth of material, it would be easy to get bogged down in details and miss the bigger picture.

Ackroyd avoids this trap, giving a readable narrative rather than exhaustive documentation. This is not Alison Weir’s Henry VIII: The King and His Court, where every ruffle and button is described, and no morsel of food crosses Henry’s table without being chronicled. For readers well-versed in Tudor history, some of the discussion may be too superficial. Ackroyd doesn’t present any groundbreaking theories, and his analysis of many of the secondary but important players is cursory. The tradeoff comes in the coherent storytelling which makes this history a pleasure to read.

Ackroyd particularly excels in his lucid discussion of the English Reformation, the transition from Catholicism to Protestantism that was far from a single, simple event. Each of the Tudor monarchs - Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary, and Elizabeth - had strong opinions about what the national religion should look like and who should control it (religious tolerance was never an option). They did not hesitate to reverse one another’s decisions while destroying those who ended up on the wrong side of the debate in the process. Even the rulers who chose a middle ground (Henry with his Protestant Catholicism and Elizabeth with her Catholic Protestantism) lashed out brutally at those on either side. It did not do to be too papist or too reformed, as Henry illustrated graphically when he had Lutherans burned as heretics and Catholics hung and disemboweled for supporting the Pope on the same day. It was difficult to ignore object lessons like those.

The Reformation serves as the overarching theme for this book. For the Tudor rulers, there was much more at stake than matters of religious faith. Changes in religion were accompanied by shifts in power and access to enormous ecclesiastical fortunes, necessary for waging foreign wars. The Tudors probably couldn’t have guessed, though, at the implications for the future. Once people were willing to accept that even the Pope’s authority could be questioned and supplanted by the King’s, was it so much of a stretch to imagine that there shouldn’t be a King at all? I expect Ackroyd will cover this in volume 3 with the English Civil War. Stay tuned. . .

A copy of this book for review was provided by NetGalley and St. Martin’s Press.

[Sue · Rating 5 out of 5]

This truly inclusive work of history, the second of Ackroyd's History of England series, provides a close look at the evolution of England from an insular feudal country of parts to a nation ready to participate in the greater world on its own terms at the end of the 16th century. Ackroyd takes the reader through the lives of Henry VIII and his well known, but perhaps less well understood, quest for an heir; his son Edward VI; then the queen known as "Bloody Mary"; and finally the reign of Elizabeth which cemented and ended the Tudor era. Along the way, he includes all that happens with the political and religious machinations of the day and the cultural implications.

I have learned so much and realize that much of my prior "knowledge" has been based on half-truths and silly songs. While there is so much that I could cite from this vastly informative book, perhaps the best summary is Ackroyd's own:


Yet arguably all these matters - the growing emphasis
upon the individual, the dissolution of communal life,
the abrogation of custom and tradition - were the
necessary conditions for the great changes in the spirit
and condition of the nation that were still to come.


I strongly recommend this book to anyone looking for a very readable text on this era in English history. I plan to read much more from Ackroyd's very prolific list.


A copy of this book was provided by the publisher through NetGalley in return for an honest review.

[Tristram Shandy · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Tudors, or Rather: The English Reformation

The Tudors are probably the best-known and most fascinating dynasty to have ever ruled over England, although a closer look will reveal most of those kings and queens as rather despicable individuals, whom you would not like to have as your neighbours. In his second volume of The History of England, Peter Ackroyd unfolds the panorama of the Tudor years [1] in as much detail as can be crammed into 470 pages and he manages to do this by concentrating on, although not confining himself to, the process of the English Reformation which gave birth to the Anglican Church as we know it.

Like in the first volume, Ackroyd proceeds strictly chronologically, using the dates of the monarchs’ accessions and deaths as stepping stones, but unlike in the first volume, the author no longer inserts chapters on what may be called people’s history, which is a pity because this kind of knowledge provides a good background against which to read the major events. Those who like to know more about general life as such in the Tudor age may be referred to Ruth Goodman’s book How to Be a Tudor or to Ian Mortimer’s The Time Traveller’s Guide to Elizabethan England. One of the few things we learn about everyday life from Ackroyd is that during the reign of Elizabeth travelling by coach became common.

Ackroyd’s major focus is, as I have already said, the English Reformation, and someone who comes from Germany, like I, will probably associate, on hearing the word “reformation”, a movement inspired by a theologian like Luther or Calvin, and being mainly driven by religious fervour and genuine convictions. Nothing, however, could be farther from the point in that Henry’s major motives were, as we all know, the wish to have Pope Clement VII. annul his marriage to his brother’s widow Katherine of Aragon, and his desire for the church’s riches. His greed was the reason why he dissolved all religious orders, all monasteries and nunneries, and the Act of Supremacy, which Parliament was forced to sign in 1534, was also prompted by Henry’s anxieties to save his dynasty, which, in his eyes, could only be done through a male heir. Throughout Henry’s reign, Ackroyd chronicles the stealthy and prevaricating course of church renewal, which may have had its fervent representatives, like Thomas Cranmer, but which, from the monarch’s side, was mere policy. This seemed to change in the days of Edward VI., and definitely in those of Queen Mary, who – this much can be said for her – followed a course of action she verily believed in, but Elizabeth I.’s reign was again characterized by prevarication, opportunism and the desire for power for the mere sake of power. All in all, the portrait Ackroyd paints of the Tudors is extremely gloomy and unflattering, which may be solid proof of its authenticity, and we are mainly dealing with courtly machinations, wars and preparations for further wars, religious persecution – in short, all the stuff Shakespearean dreams are made of, and it can be said that Ackroyd is certainly capable of taking his readers along this dark voyage, selecting his details carefully and not assuming too much previous knowledge with his readers but not taking them for ingoramuses, either.

Nevertheless, I did not enjoy Tudors to the same degree as I did the first volume, because Ackroyd jumps right into the action with his initial chapter instead of explaining his approach to the topic, his selection of data and his focus. It is by and by that you start to realize that the author is concerned with the birth of the Anglican Church under the Tudor Monarchy – and it is in this light that it makes sense to deal with the first Tudor king, Henry VII., in the preceding volume because although he was a Tudor, he did not have any part in the peculiar religious strife that characterized England in the 16th century. At the end of his book, Ackroyd takes stock of what the Tudor years meant for Christianity in England, but I think that the book would have profited a lot in terms of structure, transparency and lucidity if the author had started with a programmatic chapter instead of sending his readers on a mission whose aim they would discover by and by.

[1] It’s not exactly the entire range of Tudor years because Henry VII. was already dealt with in the first volume of Ackroyd’s History, which allows the author to start his second book with probably the most illustrious monarch in English history.

[Sherry Sharpnack · Rating 5 out of 5]

Who doesn’t love the Tudors? They tie up the dynastic wars of the heirs of Edward Iii in fifteenth century into such a neat little bow.

Peter Ackroyd’s second volume in the history of England begins w/ Henry VIII, whose obsession w/ a male heir turns him from a golden prince into a bloodthirsty tyrant, and then covers each of Henry’s “legitimate” children in turn. Mr. Ackroyd is the first historian that I have EVER read who thinks Anne Boleyn WAS screwing around on Henry. I can’t get over that one. At least he paints Mary, Queen of Scots as the evil spider spinning her webs that I have always considered her.

This book could have easily been titled “Reformation”. It would have gone better w/ the first book, “Foundation” and the next book, “Rebellion.” Anyway, the history of England under the Tudors is actually the history of England slowly turning from Catholicism to Protestantism. It proceeded by fits and starts, and seen from the view of an average Englishman, religion was a subject to be feared and avoided during this time period. Henry tore down the monasteries and despoiled church properties to enrich himself, and the three succeeding monarchs, even uber-Catholic Mary, did nothing to restore those properties, and thus restore the traditional order of society to the countryside. W/o the monasteries and convents, vagrancy abounded And poor people basically died in the streets. Shameful. Not until Poor Laws were passed in the last few years of Elizabeth’s long reign was this problem addressed. English rulers and government did not yet care about the “common man.”

Ackroyd did a fair job of staying impartial in the Catholic-Protestant divide, which is difficult. He tried hard to defend Mary’s burning of heretics by comparing the numbers who died to those executed for
Their faith under Henry and Elizabeth, but the numbers don’t hold up b/c Mary reigned for a scant five years compared to Elizabeth’s 45 years and Henry’s 39+.

“Tudors” does a masterful job of showing why churches and the great cathedrals of England are empty. It also set up nicely the divisions between Queen and parliament that will come to a head in “Rebellion.”

[Josh · Rating 4 out of 5]

Part Two complete. Where Part One more or less ends with the the ascension of Henry VII (the original King Tudor), this one picks up with the stars of the show, Henry VIII and his welcomed/unwelcomed daughter Elizabeth I, with a spattering of other lesser co-stars including Mary I, Edward VI, Lady Jane Grey and the ever-scheming *Mary, Queen of Scots and her spawn. It ends with Elizabeth I's death and the relay handoff to *James I of England/James VI of Scotland.

*Denotes a Stuart, not a Tudor!

This reads like a ridiculous violent soap opera riddled with religious persecution, power hungry nobles that do anything to keep status and a bunch of 'He said, she said!'. The power of the church itself starts to lose its grip, yet religion itself is still the main stronghold over what's deemed "how to live".

Seriously though, with that said, one interesting fact I realized with all the murder and violence, you can see a transition between the burning people at the stake for not believing in the concept of transubstantiation in Henry VIII's time to the slightly less gruesome business of beheadings for heresy and treasonous behavior during Elizabeth I's reign. Also, during her reign, the idea of being a heretic was given a more lenient punishment in general, so starts a more progressive thinking (I hope, I am learning some things after all!).

I could write paragraph after paragraph on this, but I will leave the interested reader to find out for themselves. I think what was written above is a nice summation. Ackroyd seems to have a lot more primary sources to work with on this volume as opposed to Foundation: The History of England from Its Earliest Beginnings to the Tudors, and it shows with him being less generalized and more precise with his story-telling.

Where I was fond of some of the more ancient historical facts that I learned from 'Foundation', I find the narrative here to be just as good, if not better. Get the popcorn ready because there's drama drama drama.

[Maja - BibliophiliaDK ✨ · Rating 2 out of 5]

A CONSERVATIVE HISTORY OF TUDOR ENGLAND

Actual rating: 2.5 ⭐

Ackroyd is not an historian, which this work clearly demonstrates. At least, it does to one who is an historian. Such as myself. I found this work to be conservative and neglectful of newer research. Perhaps even a bit biased toward the rich and powerful. In essence, this is not a history of the English people. It a story of white, male power.

"There is no doubt that he [Henry VIII] had conceived an overpowering passion for her [Anne Boleyn], and she in her turn was doing her best to retain his affection without alienating him."

👍 What I Liked 👍

Easy: This is without a doubt a book written for the masses. It was very well written, easy to follow and not bogged down by descriptions or tangents.

👎 What I Disliked 👎

Religion: Yes, religion was a big part of Tudor England. One of the most decisive changes tot the course of English history was the reformation and the establishment of the Church of England. But boy, does it get old quickly to read 500 pages about religion. At least, when you expect a much wider history. Maybe some social history? Gender history? Economic history?

Elite: If you're looking for a story of the everyday lives of everyday people, this is not the book for you. Ackroyd writes a story primarily about the elite. The nobles and the royals. The only women, who make it into his account, are the queens. Mainly the queen regents. The queens of Henry VIII are barely given any space. And they are not treated as women in their own right, only in connection with Henry. It felt very elitist.

Conservative: A lot of newer research, theories and interpretations are overlooked here or dismissed without ceremony in favour of more conservative and traditional ideas. People like Anne Boleyn, who has been the subject of serious rehabilitation during the last 50 years, is once again reduced to a power hungry flirt. It was sad to read.

Follow me for more book loving content!
Blog ✨ Facebook ✨ Instagram ✨ Twitter
Blog Post: Which Book Should you read next based on your favourite Jane Austen Heroine

[Pam Baddeley · Rating 3 out of 5]

Having not read volume 1 of this series, I was surprised that this begins with the coronation of Henry VIII, but the author has perhaps treated his father as being the last monarch of the medieval age. Certainly the reign of Henry VIII is when the huge changes and upheavals in religious life occurred, leading to a huge number of social consequences. The author concentrates more on this aspect in the earlier part of the book, and the various milestone events such as the king's courtship of Anne Boleyn are quite sketchily dealt with against this background.

I found the section on Elizabeth I's reign more interesting. I knew about her early life, plus the defeat of the Armada, and the problem of Mary Queen of Scots, but this filled out the reign more fully and put things more into context.

One problem I had early on slightly undermined my confidence in the book. There was a mention of Henry's jousting partner, without mentioning his name. I thought this must be Charles Brandon, and looked it up in the index to see if there was a mention to confirm this but instead the page I'd been reading and indeed all mention of this man was under the erroneous entry of Thomas Brandon. That did make me wonder if there were other such mistakes.

The book was a bit slow in places and on the whole I would give it a 3 star rating.

[Lisa · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've now reached the second volume of Peter Ackroyd's History of England and it turns out it's a volume even more fantastically absorbing than the first, partly thanks to its taking on one of my favourite periods to read about - the Terrible Tudors (hat tip to Horrible Histories, one of the best TV programmes ever made, and I'll have anyone who disagrees burnt as a heretic).

Beginning with start of the reign of Henry VIII and taking us through Edward VI, the Nine Day Queen (Lady Jane Grey), Bloody Mary and Good Queen Bess, it's also a look at the religious upheaval that was a defining part of that time and that led to the separation, albeit in fits and starts, of church and state in England. With each of the monarchs (and indeed, most of the populace) holding their own strong views on the role of religion in their kingdom, 16th century England was a particularly dangerous time. With what seemed like most of the population denounced and/or executed for being either Protestant or Catholic (depending on which doctrine was currently in favour), it's a wonder there were any English left for us to descend from. Especially during the particularly volatile times of transition where views that would have had you praised for your piety one week would get you publicly burnt as a heretic the next - and the accounts of those burnings are pretty appalling (our ancestors must have had much stronger stomachs than I, especially when it came to watching those where helpful families and friends would tie bags of gunpowder around their loved ones necks in order to bring their agonies to a quicker end).

Filled with fascinating and surprising facts that I may have been regurgitating to my friends on a regular basis ever since, and so well written that it often made me forget I was reading a history book, I'm becoming something of a fan of Peter Ackroyd.

[Chloe Van Roose · Rating 5 out of 5]

Honestly, I was all for giving this book four stars, before I read the last chapter. Having read more than enough books on the Tudor period, I tend not to come to them looking to learn anything new, but to see whether the author has a different way of looking at things, or how they word and structure the events of the period. Having loved all Peter Ackroyd's previous books, and really enjoying his style of writing, I had high hopes for this. There were areas where it seemed a little dry, especially surrounding the politics of Henry VIII's reign (specifically the divorce - I am yet to find an author that can make all those papal bulls and legates as compelling as the rest of the Tudor era), but about halfway through, his enthusiasm began to show. A large section of the book is devoted to Elizabeth - perhaps rightly so, considering the length of her reign compared to the period as a whole - and Ackroyd succeeds wonderfully in bringing the saga of her and Mary, Queen of Scots back to life once more. It is not all kings and queens, however. Every now and then is a touch of the common man - how they felt towards religion, the famines and sicknesses being suffered as matters of high policy, with little effect on the majority of the country, were being discussed in court. Yet it was really the last chapter that stood out for me. In just a few pages, Ackroyd manages to bring together all the overarching themes of the period, and set the stage for the next instalment. He brings together politics, religion, culture, and social experience, and ensures that the reader recognises the enormous changes wrought upon England during these years.

[Anastasiya · Rating 4 out of 5]

как-то совсем отчетливо видно, что история правителей и история страны - это разные истории. история Тюдоров есть, а об истории Англии тут немногое можно узнать - как жили, чем жили, зачем жили - неизвестно, показательно только как и почему и насколько разнообразно умирали.

[Rosemary Atwell · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a more tightly compressed and focused narrative than its predecessor and examines the reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary and Elizabeth through the prism of the Reformation. Although Ackroyd's coverage of religious reform is very impressive, I would have enjoyed some of the diversity that characterised the first volume. Still highly enjoyable though - engrossing and entertaining. Ackroyd Is a wonderful stylist.

[Bettie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bettie's Books

[Gintautas Ivanickas · Rating 4 out of 5]

Antras Ackroydo Anglijos istorijos tomas. Ir nors pasakoja apie bene geriausiai man pažįstamą periodą – Tiudorų valdymą, bet dėka gyvo Ackroydo pasakojimo, nuobodu nebuvo.
O ir ar galėtų būti? Visos tos Henriko VIII ir jo moterų santykių peripetijos, kurios iš esmės lėmė Anglijos posūkį tolyn nuo Romos katalikybės ir savos religijos užgimimo – religijos, ieškančios kažkokio aukso vidurio tarp katalikybės ir kraštutinio protestantizmo. Henrio širdies reikalai nejuokais įsiūbavo religijos švytuoklę, kuri dar ilgai nenurims, tai nukrypdama į vieną pusę – Kruvinosios Merės (ne kokteilio, o karalienės Marijos I) valdymo metu, tai vėl lėks atgalios – į sostą sėdus karalienei Mergelei (ne zodiako ženklas, o taip ir neištekėjusios Elžbietos I pravardė).
Nuolatiniai sąmokslai, intrigos ir monarchų vaidai. Mirtina dviejų karalienių – Elžbietos I ir Marijos Stiuart priešprieša, pasibaigusi tuo, kad Elžbieta galiausiai pasmerkė myriop savo konkurentę... ir paliko savo sostą jos sūnui.
Ackroydas ne tik nupasakoja įvykius, bet sykis nuo sykio platesniu žvilgsniu aprėpia visų tų įvykių pasekmes ekonomikai, šalies vystymuisi ir, žinoma, religijai.
Aiškiai skaitysiu seriją toliau. O šitai daliai – neabejotini keturi iš penkių.

[Kelly · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent. Full of quotations of how people spoke in Elizabethan times and insights into events and characters.

[Faith · Rating 3 out of 5]

There is way too much about church reformation in this book. The topic doesn't interest me at all.

[Diana · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am slowly working my way through this epic history of England. Peter Ackroyd does his best to put as much as he can into these books about the founding of this part of Great Britain, and trust me there is a lot to get through. It's exactly what it says it is the history during the time of the Tudors, he doesn't try to condense it so there is a ton of information here and I can see where it could be way too much for some to start with. However, I really don't recommend this series to anyone who doesn't have a good base to the histories he is writing, you need to know a general idea of what is in the book because of all the information to get through. I love how Peter Ackroyd writes so I thoroughly enjoyed getting into this monster history, but I have to admit it won't be for everyone. If you're interested in British history and want to get into a massive overview of it, definitely pick up this set.

[Frédéric · Rating 2 out of 5]

Or more accurately "The reform of the english church under the Tudors".

Not that it should be overlooked, the point is important enough I won’t discuss that. But it fills 80% of the book, the rest being succession issues and unimportant details. To say it left me wanting is an understatement.

Next to nothing about english society, the advance of arts and litterature, the birth of what will be the british empire and whatever could fill an history book of the Tudor period. As entertaining as is Ackroyd's style it doesn’t make up for all that was missed.

[Jurjen Abbes · Rating 4 out of 5]

Peter Ackroyd does not write history. He just writes it down. But oh, does he do it well.

In 'Tudors', Ackroyd covers about the whole of the sixteenth century in England and describes the woes and fortunes of the Tudor dynasty, through king Henry VIII, Edward VI, Jane Grey - if one counts her - Mary Tudor, and finally, the amazing Elizabeth I. Do not expect a history of the common man in England, because you will be deceived. This is, as the title gives away, a history of the dynasty. Customs at court, decisions in parliament, disputes in theology, and most importantly, rivalries among England's elite: these are the topics discussed, ordinary life is just visible at the background.

So, what kind of a book is this, actually? Clearly, it is not the work of a historian; footnotes are completely absent, sources are rarely mentioned, and the author is not embarrassed to make sweeping generalisations and ambitious interpretations. Neither the occasional risk of contradiction nor the use of outdated and controversial narratives seem to hold Ackroyd back. Consider, for example, that he uses the fate of Michael Servetus to illustrate how Protestants justified the burning of heretics (p. 270); a trope that historians of the Reformation would find easy to rebut. Or how bluntly he goes from describing the Elizabethan era as remarkably secular (on p. 353) to noting how religion and politics were extremely closely aligned (p. 360).
In fairness, though, I think these things don't matter so much. 'Tudors' is not a historiographical monography. It tells the history of the era the way it is popularly known. And it tells this story in an engaging way, the book reads like a novel. More than once, I found myself disappointed by Ackroyd's occasional spoilers into the next episode, because I was so drawn into the story. This is a testament to his writing skills, I believe.

I read some reviews that said this book focused too much on religion. This criticism is unfair. It is impossible to assess sixteenth-century political and royal history without coming to as full an understanding of theological developments and disputes as possible. As announed on the back flap: the history of the Tudors ís the history of the establishment of the English Church, no way around it.

Have you ever wondered how Henry VIII went through six wives? Why Elizabeth I went down as one of England's greatest monarchs? Where the origins of English foreign policy principles might be found? How the Church of England came into being? You might find some preliminary answers to these questions, and more, in the sixteenth century. You might even find them here, in Ackroyd's book.

[Randall Wallace · Rating 4 out of 5]

Henry VIII composed masses, songs and motets, played lute and keyboard, and owned seventy-two flutes at his death. All male English kids at the time had to practice archery. The enclosure movement was about rearing of sheep more than the growing of crops. “Communal effort was slowly being supplanted by competition.” This was the time of the rise of the merchant. Thomas More becomes the new chancellor. The penalty for poisoning someone was to be boiled alive. The first person to be boiled alive, his name was Al Dente. There was no sense of privacy in the 16th century world. Anything you said could and would be used against you. Between 1534 and 1540, there were over 300 executions for the charge of treason. Merely criticizing the king privately got you killed under the Treasons Act. John Haughton was the first to die for this. “He was partially hanged before his heart was ripped out and rubbed in his face, his bowels were then pulled from his while he still lived and burned before him. He was beheaded and his body cut into quarters.” No wonder citizens were fleeing England at the time.

Five men accused of sleeping with Anne Boleyn were executed. Anne is then the first queen of England to be beheaded. Twenty-seven people testify that Anne had sex with her own brother. Yeah, sure. If you have sex with your own brother, its hard to imagine not inviting 27 people to watch just so they can later blackmail you. Severe repression worked and soon the realm was quiet about the many abuses caused by Henry VIII. Thanks to him, “within three years the monasteries, the friaries, the priories and the nunneries would be gone.” The religious life of ten centuries was destroyed (when he permanently broke with Rome). The friar, John Forrest is then burned, he takes two hours to die in front of 10,000. Would you like to be roasted? Well, I’m more of a friar. Why aren’t these gruesome past events today called legal lynchings? English history seems to be white men doing the nastiest stuff to each other for centuries, under the guise of Christianity. Eleven years prior to Henry’s break with Rome, you’d be burned for reading an English Bible, but now every English Church had to have one. “It was said the voice of God was English.” What rubbish. Hampton Court becomes the largest structure in England since Roman times. Cromwell is executed by incompetents which takes a half-hour of hacking. The years of Wolsey and Cromwell are now over. The Stuart dynasty begins with the daughter of Robert the Bruce and ends with the death of Queen Anne 172 years later.

During those Tudor days, “a lute was placed in many barber shops, for customers to while away the time”. I’ll bet if you picked up one of those lutes and sang the Herman’s Hermits hit “I’m Henry the Eighth, I am” in one of those Tudor barber shops, you’d soon be tortured to death. Katherine Parr gets put on the rack and tortured and then tied to a stake and burned. Par for the course; what a country. “It was decreed that elaborate polyphonal music was no longer appropriate in a house of worship.” “The English were no longer allowed to pray for their dead.” If two witnesses said you were guilty of “idle living”, you could be branded with a V on your chest and forced to live as a slave for two years. This was meant as an attempt to curb vagrancy. Elite were afraid of the masterless man, “anyone walking free (like Jesus obviously did) had to be detained or restrained.” In 1548, “all preaching was prohibited except for those especially licensed to do so.” Jesus himself didn’t have a license and if he therefore couldn’t preach, in 1548, there would be no Christians. Anyway, Mass now had to be said in English not Latin. Parish churches now were plain and bare, with no decoration.

You had to be at church on Sunday. The first time you skipped it you would get six months imprisonment. Skip church three times and you get imprisoned for life. The cut with Rome was complete, no pope needed anymore. Edward VI dies, followed by Queen Jane who rules for nine days. A boy who says, “the Lady Mary has the better title” has his ears “severed at the root on the following morning.” Mary I was half-Spanish. Any crowd in London during Mary’s I reign was dispersed. Mary executes 300 Protestants during her reign. She is followed by the famed Elizabeth I. On page 260, Peter says after every meal in England ended with a belching contest. If speaking one’s mind leads to torture, what else is left to safely say except by belching? Meanwhile for some religious flaw, the bishop of Gloucester is slowly roasted with his arms falling off and spectators enjoying watching the “fat, water and blood drop out at his finger ends.” He still lived for anther ¾ of an hour. A jar of pitch placed on a young farmers head and set alight. Spectators of the time weren’t very sympathetic. Victims would be pelted by rocks and sticks. There would be concession stands selling their wares at executions, and you got 40 indulgences for bringing wood to the fire. Children were instructed to bring wood. One burning man who began singing a psalm is silenced by a rock on the side of his head. A religious commissioner said to the rock thrower, “Truly you have marred a good old song.” “It was said one burning was worth more than one hundred sermons.” Lovely.

Calvin is partly responsible for this sadistic religious crap; Calvin had declared that Christian had a duty to “destroy” false gods. Let’s look at linear progress: under Henry VIII Catholics were burned, while under Elizabeth “some 200 Catholics were strangled or disemboweled.” Vive la difference. Whether your Tudor monarch was a man or woman, looked like Bette Davis or not, you still had to live in fear in a sadistic land. And that violence wasn’t confined to royalty: the stone throwers at executions and that “the people would rather go a bear-baiting than to attend a divine service”.

Elizabeth I to her credit though did not like war; as she said, “My mind was never to invade my neighbors.” The English possession of 211 years on port of Calais is lost. It had cost a fortune to upkeep. Elizabeth I spoke Latin, Italian, French, Spanish, German, and English. She was rarely (if ever) alone. She restored debased coinage to its real value. Mary is forced to abdicate in Scotland and is replaced by James VI. Timber and clay houses are replaced by stone and plaster. Elizabeth I wore the first wristwatch in 1572. The French could be violent douchebags too: “Count Orsini had told the French king that not one Huguenot should be left alive in France.” The Anabaptists are tortured during Elizabeth’s reign for saying Christians shouldn’t be carrying swords. Getting tortured for believing in Christian non-violence. Torture was a royal prerogative in matters of the state. In an exceedingly rare appearance by the real God, on January 12, 1583, the stand of a bear-pit collapses killing many spectators (one hopes the bears dined well that night and the meat wasn’t too tough).

James VI of Scotland and Elizabeth I agree (Treaty of Berwick) to do the Protestant thing together and protect each other in case of invasion. Philip II of Spain had lost his armada but was powerful and still owned the Philippines, Indonesia and much of lower America. His revenue was 10X what Elizabeth was getting. Elizabeth hated shaded portraits and wouldn’t allow portraits of her to shade her face, or make her look at all old. She would have liked ring lights. When Elizabeth died, they had to carefully cut her coronation ring off. Now was the coronation of King James VI and also the end of the Tudors. Very good book.

[Lara · Rating 5 out of 5]

Peter Ackroyd's second volume in his history of England series carries with it the promise shown in the first volume, "Foundation". Of course, how can you write about "The Tudors" and not generate interest? They are the one English royal family about whom one never tires of reading. But Mr. Ackroyd's account of this famous (and infamous) family - from Henry VIII to his daughter, Elizabeth I - not only recounts the personal aspects, but also focuses upon the most important thread which ran through the reigns of Henry, Edward, Mary and Elizabeth: The English Reformation. He traces the slow transformation of a country from one where the churches once were looked to for "good governance" to one in which "the state" as a governmental body slowly began to evolve. People began to look to themselves for answers, rather than to those who ruled them - both in religious and secular organizations - and Mr. Ackroyd further details the path of the Reformation from the simple Catholic/Protestant paradigm to the schisms and divisions within Protestantism itself, yielding any number of sects and diverse groupings, including the Puritans, and pointing out that to be "Protestant" wasn't quite as simple as it sounded.

Throughout all move The Tudors themselves - Henry and his wives, his unfortunate son, Edward VI, the not-altogether unsympathetic "Bloody Mary" Tudor and, finally, the glorious, enigmatic, ephemeral Elizabeth - imperious, haughty, cruel, awesome (in the traditional sense of the word), magisterial, pitiful, the stuff of dreams. No doubt they will always fascinate us, and their "larger than life" images remain so in Ackroyd's capable telling, while he manages at the same time to reveal their humanness - Henry's relentless pursuit of the perfect wife and an heir to guarantee his dynasty, Edward's half-child/half-adult princely and, finally, kingly state which he was not fated to wear long, the personal tragedy of a lonely woman in the case of Mary Tudor and Elizabeth's greatness despite all her personal flaws, her temper and her often irritating habit of prevarication which drove her Privy Council members to despair.

I look forward to Volume III of Mr. Ackroyd's history, when he will no doubt take up the reigns of James I through, I'm guessing, Charles II. In "The Tudors", the violent, sometimes overwhelming changes in English society and the monarchy itself have only begun; coming up are the travails of Charles I, Oliver Cromwell and Charles II.

Don't miss out on this wonderful series!

[MasterSal · Rating 4 out of 5]

Listened on audio - which was well done and helped keep my interest.

Of all the periods of English history I am most familiar with the Tudors so parts of this were a little too introductory for me. Events of the Tudor monarchs themselves was specifically stuff I already knew of but Peter Ackroyd's writing was engaging and kept me interested in continuing to read the book.

The bulk of the volume was more focused on the Reformation - which was a new angle for me. A lot of the books I have read are biographies so naturally focus more on the lives of Henry VIII, his wives, Elizabeth I etc etc. Seeing the history put in terms of context of the change happening with the religion in England was very interesting and probably the newest part for me.

It also drove home how factitious the times actually were. There is a myth of the stability of the British monarchy and system of government. The Tudors obviously missed that memo - this is probably why this period is so fascinating to us in popular media and mythology.

A good read, especially for readers looking for a solid, well written overview of the period.

[Helene Harrison · Rating 3 out of 5]

Review - A little disappointing in places as there were some glaring errors e.g. Thomas Brandon where it should have been Charles Brandon in the index. What? Nevertheless, a good overview of the period, although not very balanced. A large part of the book was given over to Elizabeth I with very little on Edward and Mary, and not much more on Henry VIII. Henry VII isn't even covered in this book on the Tudors but is covered in the previous one in the series, which seems a little odd to me. I wouldn't really recommend it to serious historians, a few too many little errors.

Subjects - History / Tudors

Recommend? - Maybe

Rating - 13/20

[Fiona · Rating 4 out of 5]

Didn't enjoy this as much as Vol 1 but only because I was filling a gap in my knowledge then and the Tudors are already too familiar. The religious issues of these times are crucially important to the understanding of the politics but Ackroyd possibly goes into too much detail for me. It's still a book to relish, keep and dip into occasionally though.

[Nathan Albright · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is rather intriguing reading this book after finishing the first volume of the series.  When one is used to flyover looks at 30,000' about the reigns of individual rulers, with one major ruler per chapter, it is a different experience to slow down the look at spend roughly the same amount of pages talking about the reigns of one dynasty of rulers over the course of less than a century that one spent on thousands of years of English history.  Nevertheless, this book does give a clear understanding of the issues that the Tudor monarchs faced and their fundamental insecurity as rulers of England.  In many respects, this work is intended as a revision to views that England was always an important player in world affairs that was able to throw its weight around and receive the respect of the European community at large.  This book (and the others in the series as well, it should be pointed out) do a good job at reminding the reader that England has long been periphery to Europe and that it was quite a struggle for England to be recognized as a major world power, and by no means something that was true in all ages or at all times.

This book is over 450 pages long and it is divided into 41 chapters.  The first sixteen chapters deal with the reign of King Henry VIII, and a surprisingly large number of those focus on his marriage woes, from his lack of heirs and search for a fertile enough wife who would give him a son to the executions of two of his wives for adultery and the insecurity that the lack of heirs had on Henry's reign, including his desire to throw his weight around in European affairs, which was generally ineffectual.  After that there are a few chapters that discuss the Protestant reformation under his son, the rollback under Mary, and the cautious settlement under Elizabeth that showed England's muddled religious identity and general mistrust of anyone who was zealous about religion.  There is even a chapter about the nine days queen for those who want to read about the brief reign of Lady Gray.  Of course, a great deal of time is spent talking about Elizabeth I but also considerable time talking about the Marian martyrs and the struggles that Mary had in having a child and in maintaining the love of her husband.  Overall, this book makes one pity the Tudors for the private misery they suffered as a result of their ambitions and power.

In giving a detailed view of the Tudor period and its problems, the author does a great job at showing the human nature of the rulers of the time.  Although this book focuses mainly on elite history, namely the behavior of the various kings and queens and dukes and other elite players, the author probably correctly judges that these are the most interesting people to the intended audience of the book and thus the book focuses on where the information is the most readily available and where the interest level of the reader is highest.  Those who want to read a social history of the Tudor period as relates to the problem of enclosure and the effects of religious revolts and the instability of the Tudor regime would likely want to check out other books that would deal with those subjects.  That is not to say that this book does not talk about social matters, as there is some discussion, for example, on the changing attitudes of nobles so that the Earl of Essex found himself condemned as a traitor for acting according to a standard of prickly reputation that would have been far more common in the Middle Ages but became increasingly problematic later on.  The more things change, the more they stay the same, though.

[Samantha · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed Foundation, Ackroyd's first volume of all things English history. I was very eager to read Tudors and learn more about these royals that I am already all but obsessed with. I always enjoy another author's perspective on these colorful characters from history. This was an easy to read and broad account of the events and people of the Tudor times. I liked the pace and amount of detail that this volume provided.

[Matthew · Rating 4 out of 5]

Peter Ackroyd does a great job of including a lot of information in a way that's accessible and doesn't feel dense or bogged down. A good blend of detail and consistent pacing.

He has written a couple of other volumes, and I'm highly inclined to get them both!

[Pete daPixie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Everything that I have read from Peter Ackroyd is certainly very well written, rich in detail and expertly researched. Volume II of this six volume series, 'Tudors', documents the sixteenth century reigns of England's most enigmatic dynasty. Unfortunately the author chose to begin in 1509 at the death of Henry VII. The founder of the Tudors is covered in his 'Foundation'. Having only read the first three volumes of this 'History of England' maybe I should wait to judge the full vision of Ackroyd's labours. Yet, that is the only reason for removing a star, in what is otherwise a five star book.
The main focus of the reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary and Elizabeth, ignoring the brief interlude of Lady Jane Grey, is centred on the reformation of the English church and the slow demise of the feudal society. These issues are brought to the fore in 'Tudors'.
At times the chronology of events jumps around the narrative and perhaps some sixteenth century innovations and personalities are only given brief mention, but throughout Ackroyd's 'History' series there are always surprises too! Edward VI's Vagrancy Act was a measure that was introduced against the large bands of vagrants that roamed the country, "begging or stealing at pleasure, the sturdy beggars were an old order with their own traditions and their own language in 'the canting tongue'. 'The cull has rum rigging, let's ding him, and mill him, and pike' was as much to say that 'the man has very good clothes, let us knock him down, rob him and run'. Interesting in that the only person in my lifetime that I have ever heard to use the word pike in this context was my father. The modern dictionary still shows 'piker' as one who picks, a pilferer or a tramp. Terms born from Tudor patois!