Henry VIII or All is True (1613) may seem an unpromising choice for a study of Shakespeare's political thought: in the first place, it is not entirely Shakespeare's work and, in the second, many would argue that it is far from the most successful example of it. Brian Vickers summarises this enduring dissatisfaction with a work that has, unfortunately, two authors. He concludes that for ‘Shakespeare this collaboration, working together with [John] Fletcher throughout a whole play … may have cost him more than he had expected’. This view presents us with a disjointed play the emphases of which change from scene to scene as the work was exchanged between its two writers.

One scene that provides an important test-case of this problem is 4. 2, in which Katherine and her gentleman usher Griffith reflect on the fall of Cardinal Wolsey. Katherine reiterates criticisms we have heard since the beginning of the play: that Wolsey is dishonest, greedy and self-aggrandising. Griffith, rather surprisingly, offers a more generous view. He takes into account Wolsey's impressive social advancement and commends his bounty. To many critics Griffith's judgement reads oddly, but so too does Katherine's immediate acceptance of it:

A reason for disbelief is that Katherine opposes Wolsey as ‘mine enemy’ from early in the play (2. 4. 75). This is important, because it gives her moral stature.