Firebrand Part II: Was Jude Law's Henry VIII Accurate?

 TW: DV, mention of executions

Jude Law as Henry VIII

I recently got in trouble on a Facebook group for my thoughts on this, which was an interesting affair to say the least. But a lot of Tudor Enthusiasts are fighting right now about Jude Law's portrayal of Henry VIII. So, as an historian, what do I think on the matter?

Apparently my take was too hot for the group I put it on lmao

In Firebrand, Jude Law's Henry VIII is violent, narcissistic, and quick to harm. In one of the first scenes with his character, Kit questions him about the implications of the execution of her on-screen friend, Anne Askew, and Henry doesn't hesitate to grab her hair, force her to kneel, and snarl at her. Later in the film, a drunk Henry beats a pregnant Kit, having begun to think that her child isn't his. This version is much colder than JRM's portrayal, and much, much nastier than Keith Michell's. But, was it accurate?

Henry VIII did have a history of pretty crap behavior: this was the person who executed the Duke of Buckingham on flimsy evidence that they were planning a coup. He was also well known for beating his advisors, specifically Thomas Cromwell. Although he began as an affable prince who was kind to women and those in need, it didn't last long: he left Catherine of Aragon to die at Kimbolton when she had heart cancer, and refused to let her daughter see her before her death. 

Henry is also well known as the king who executed two of his wives: Anne Boleyn in 1536 and Katherine Howard in 1542. Anne, his second wife whom he created the Anglican church for, had failed to give him a son by 1536, and had behaved inappropriately as Queen of England: conversations about the King's death had circulated, as well as bullying behaviors. Mind you, Anne was a knight's daughter: she had not been trained for this role in her youth, nor did she receive that training after her ascent to the throne. Henry used false charges, some of which surrounded her inappropriateness, to have her arrested and executed. Anne is widely believed to be innocent: a sentiment that I, too believe. 

Katherine Howard was Henry's fifth wife. Historians hope that she was closer to 17 at the time of her marriage to him, but there's a chance she was closer to 15. Katherine's main offence was a tricky one: she retroactively violated a law that did not exist at the time of her marriage to Henry: that any woman who married the king must disclose her sexual history within 30 days of the marriage. Katherine had a history, thanks to her upbringing at her grandmother's estate.

The Dowager Duchess Agnes Howard owned Chesworth House in Horsham, where she took in aristocratic children who were down on their luck. Katherine was a member of the infamous Howard clan, thus securing her place in the house. Although Chesworth sounds like a lovely place on paper, it housed an open secret: there was neglect within the walls, and the girls' dormitory had no lock on it. It is alleged that Katherine Howard had two very inappropriate relationships during her tenure there: both with older men, and both while she was a pre-teenager. Today, we call what happened to her grooming, however that was not the case back in the 16th century: it was fornication, and retroactively a crime. 

Katherine also had a friendship with one Thomas Culpeper: Culpeper had a history of sexual violence, and it seems he became much too close to the naive, young Queen. Their letters were used as evidence that they both committed adultery with one another: once against a statement that is being seen through different lenses in the history community today. Henry swore once he heard the news of her infidelity that he would strangle her himself, and often wept. 

Both would lose their lives over this malarky.

On another note: what we call domestic violence in the 21st century was once legal, and it was so in the Tudor era. Within marriage vows, a woman promised to be "bonny and buxom in bed and in board," and if she failed, she could be expected to be beaten. Men were the head of the household: a woman was beneath him, and so were the children, and he was expected to discipline both. This often came in the form of hitting, boxing, or using a switch to get the job done. However, there were rules pertaining to how a husband could beat his wife: if the rod he used to beat her was too thick (thicker than his thumb), he could get in massive trouble with the church. If a man used violence too often in the household, or his discipline was life threatening, a woman could annul her marriage on the grounds of cruelty. 

Henry, by the time he was married, was expected to discipline his wives: he was their leader and their head, and they were to obey. It was nearly expected that he would discipline them. 

So, was Jude Law accurate to Henry VIII? Very much so. I think he captured the essence of the real man perfectly. Law really got into this role, even securing a perfume that smelled like stool to be more accurate to his character.  I think it's high time that we stop fantasizing about Henry VIII as a cordial and romantic husband and recognize him for who he was: cruel, cold, and tyrannical.