The Tudors Season 4, Episode 7, “Sixth and Final Wife,” dramatizes the marriage between Henry VIII and Catherine Parr, along with major political developments like the Act of Succession and Catherine’s role as Regent. But how historically accurate is it? From the reality of Tudor royal weddings to whether Catherine Parr truly nursed Henry VIII, and how the succession laws reshaped England, this breakdown explores what The Tudors gets right, what it changes, and what really happened in Tudor history.

In This Post:

• How Accurate is Catherine Parr’s Marriage to Henry VIII?
• Could Catherine Parr Refuse Henry VIII’s Proposal in Real Life?
• Did Catherine Parr Act as a Mother to Henry VIII’s Children?
• Did Catherine Parr Really Nurse Henry VIII?
• What Was Henry VIII’s Leg Ulcer? How Did It Affect Him?
• Why Did Henry VIII Change the Act of Succession?
• Why Did Henry VIII Make Catherine Parr Regent?
• Did Hugh Latimer Serve Catherine Parr?
• Minor Historical Inaccuracies

Episode 7: Sixth and Final Wife

How Accurate is Catherine Parr’s Marriage to Henry VIII?

The Tudors has a habit of making royal weddings into a big deal, but they were historically rather small, private, intimate affairs. Catherine Parr got married in a private chamber in a small room in the palace with only her close friends and family in attendance, rather than in a massive church with several hundred people watching. But both of Henry’s daughters were there, and it’s nice to see them in the front row, getting along since they won’t later in life.

Could Catherine Parr Refuse Henry VIII’s Proposal in Real Life?

In the series, as she told her boyfriend Thomas Seymour last week, of course she does not want to marry Henry; anyone would be out of their mind to want that, given “what happens to his queens!” He had a terrible track record. Two divorces, two executions, and one death.

Henry VIII was “old” for a monarch and morbidly obese, with a stinking leg ulcer that refused to heal thanks to undiagnosed diabetes. He was foul-tempered, with a history of sending people he claimed to love and had once been close to, to the block. Three of his advisors were dead, two of them by the ax, and a third on his way to face judgment (Sir Thomas More, Sir Thomas Cromwell, and Cardinal Wolsey). Two wives were dead, with members of their families with them.

Catherine Parr could have said no, but there might have been “blowback” at court. Her father and brother may have lost their positions, had back-taxes levied against them, or the king might have found some other way to punish her, because that was something he routinely did, as a man who never took “no” for an answer. Put in that light, she couldn’t have said no without social, political, or personal repercussions from an unstable monarch.

The best-case scenario in this situation in the back of their minds was, Catherine gives up a couple of good years to the king, he dies, leaves her rich and powerful enough to pick anyone she wants to marry, and she chooses Thomas Seymour, which is exactly what happened. Henry was in bad shape and probably incapable of making love, so she may not have had to do much in the marital bed department. All she has to do is look after his kids, read to him, and be “pleasant.”

Catherine Parr’s family was upstanding. As long as she didn’t shoot Thomas Seymour any lingering looks while married to the king, she probably figured she would be “safe” enough and outlive him. It benefitted her family for her to say yes. Her sister Anne became one of her chief ladies-in-waiting, and her husband got a knighthood and property in Wales. Her uncle became her Lord Chamberlain, and her brother received a bunch of promotions that involved lands and estates.

Did Catherine Parr Act as a Mother to Henry VIII’s Children?

Despite only being thirty-one, Catherine took up the role formerly occupied by Jane Seymour as “mother” to the king’s children. Since only a handful of years separated them, and her mother had been good friends with Catherine of Aragon, she and Mary were friends and got along well. She encouraged the king to spend more time with Elizabeth, and Edward visited them often. Henry had never lived with his own children, and as they went on progresses, he spent a good deal of time with them all.

Did Catherine Parr Really Nurse Henry VIII?

In a combination of historical events, a Duke visits the court and gets eyed up by Mary, while Catherine Parr hastens out of the room to tend the king’s ulcerous leg. On the show, she puts his nasty leg on her lap and places a poultice over the infection before telling the servants to move her own bed closer to the king so she may “nurse him.”

Previous depictions of Catherine Parr have leaned heavily into this idea and made her a nursemaid to an old, bad-tempered king. Two historians (Fraser and Weir) state that Catherine sat with his bad leg on her lap and moved her bed into a closet off Henry’s bedchamber during his illness, but there’s not much corroborating evidence for it. There is also some confusion about how long he was seriously ill; either two days or over a week.

Given that Catherine Parr spent a lot of her time writing books, translating them into English, and promoting the Reformist cause, and looking after the welfare of his children, I doubt she spent most of her time being the king’s nursemaid.

What Was Henry VIII’s Ulcer? How Did It Affect Him?

So, what was going on with his leg? In 1536, during a joust, a horse fell on it. He was unconscious for two hours, sustained a concussion, and fractured his leg. A year later, he developed a varicose ulcer, which is a shallow, slow-healing open sore caused by blood pooling in the vein valves. Eventually, he got them in both legs, which caused him never-ending pain. They are slow to heal in the first place, but Henry was an undiagnosed diabetic, thanks to weighing almost four hundred pounds and a diet of rich foods, which made natural healing impossible.

His ulcers would build up with pus, then burst, flooding his body with infection and causing him to be feverish for days. He almost died of these infections at least twice before they eventually killed him. Henry underwent horrific attempts by his doctors to heal them, including them trying to keep them open to “drain.” They cauterized the wounds with hot irons, lanced them, and applied poultices to them, but the stench of pus and rotting flesh could be smelled from three rooms away.

It’s believed that his constant pain and sepsis made him emotionally unstable and cruel in his last few years. He also suffered from frequent headaches. Henry VIII was an awful person, but the last few years of his life must have been hell.

Why Did Henry VIII Change the Act of Succession?

In 1547, Parliament passed the Third Act of Succession, which gave a female the right to inherit the Crown for the first time in English history. This is a huge deal, considering the extreme lengths Henry went to ensure the throne passed to a male heir. He had at least a dozen pregnancies (most of them miscarriages or stillbirths or dead infants) with Catherine of Aragon, chucked her aside for Anne Boleyn, and finally got his male heir off Jane Seymour, before marrying three more women to get “a spare.” He introduced Reform to England (in a neutered state) and changed history forever because “a girl can’t inherit the throne.” And now he’s changing it again.

Irony, since years earlier, Catherine of Aragon was like, “Uh, our daughter can totally rule this country.” And it would have been interesting to see how she would have ruled it, had not her father ripped it apart with Reformist vs. Catholic factions. Catherine had no problem with a female line of succession because Spain allowed it. Her mother usurped the throne from a family member and taught her daughters they were the equal of men. But Henry had no such feminist upbringing (despite his magnificent grandmother, Margaret Beaufort, being a powerhouse in her own right).

His reasons for being against female succession stemmed from a few hundred years earlier, when the war over England between cousins King Stephen (the usurper) and Emperess Maude (the rightful heir) tore Britain apart for nineteen years. The war went on and on, with one side winning back territories and then being pushed out of them, with hundreds of thousands of casualties on both sides, all because a man took a woman’s lawful throne in her temporary absence. Given that his own father had ended the War of the Roses, another decades-long battle for the throne, Henry VIII did not want to be the monarch who plunged England into another civil war.

Henry hoped his son would live to produce heirs and secure the throne, but now admitted in writing that his daughters were of royal blood and could inherit the throne and carry on the Tudor succession. Both Catherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn were vindicated at last. The scene is nice, with Mary and Elizabeth showing us their distinct personalities; Mary is emotional about her father restoring her to the succession and leaving for France, and Elizabeth is stone-faced and “whatever, dad.”

Why Did Henry VIII Make Catherine Parr Regent?

Why did Henry pick Catherine to be his Regent and not someone else? Catherine of Aragon served as his Regent in his last French invasion, and nobody batted an eyelid, because her parents raised her to rule kingdoms. She was opening Parliament at eleven years old. But Catherine Parr was nowhere near as well-educated or politically savvy.

Picking your Regent was a tricky business, though. You couldn’t leave it to anyone who might decide to betray you and take your throne in your absence; it was safer for him to leave it with an intelligent, capable, and loyal wife who had everything to lose if anyone tried to usurp her husband and protector. It also avoided favoritism or squabbling among the lords left behind, and gave no “man” authority in his absence.

Did Hugh Latimer Serve Catherine Parr?

While Henry is off storming the castle in France, Catherine Parr appoints Hugh Latimer to serve as her royal confessor. Latimer was a prominent reformer who preached publicly on the need for an English translation of the Bible. He disagreed with the king’s Six Articles of Faith and spent some time in prison before he was released. But he never served as Catherine Parr’s confessor; he served as a chaplain to Katherine Willoughby-Brandon instead, during Edward VI’s reign. He was eventually tried as a heretic during the reign of Mary I and burned at the stake.

(Katherine was the daughter of Estrella ne Maria de Salinas, and Baron Willoughby, who are the main characters in several of my Tudor novels.)

The Tudors uses him instead of the “I’ve been absent for two seasons now” Archbishop Cranmer. Historically, everything Latimer does is what Cranmer did, including encouraging Catherine to express her Reformist ideals in writing, advising her in her husband’s absence, and expanding her Reformist views.

This also sets her up to be eyed as a heretic by Bishop Gardiner, who had a reason for concern because Catherine Parr had so many Reformist ladies in her household. She had stacked the deck against Catholics. That meant their husbands were also Reformers, which meant the king might lean more Reformist than Catholic, and that was a problem for his desire to restore England to “Catholic in all but name.” It also meant Prince Edward might be raised Protestant, and what a living hell that would be for the future of England and for its Catholic faction!

Minor Historical Inaccuracies:

• The “bloody flux” strikes Henry’s camp in France, to explain heavy losses, but that never actually happened.
• Charles Brandon meets Bridgitte, his future mistress… who never existed.

Curious what personality types feature in The Tudors? Check out my analysis here!

This article is part of my Historical Accuracy in Historical TV Shows & Movies series, where I break down the real history behind popular historical dramas.

About the Author: Charity Bishop writes historical fiction, historical fantasy, and suspense novels that explores the darkness in human hearts, and the light that refuses to be extinguished. Discover her books.