Bastard, Conqueror, King

Today's book is about the well-known English King, William the Conqueror. He famously conquered England in 1066 after the battle of Hastings and ruled England thereafter. He's also known for instituting probably the first census of England in the great survey of the property of England and Wales in 1086 recorded in the Domesday Book. Someday, I would like to have a look at the Domesday Book. Today, however, I will stick to the book I'm reviewing.

The book is The Conqueror by Georgette Heyer. Yes, Ms. Heyer, beloved for her fluffy Regency romance, also dabbled in other periods of history. This book covers William's life before he conquered England and became King; when he was just a "humble" Duke of Normandy. William had a difficult life - he was illegitimate, but his father left no legitimate heirs and William had to fight to maintain his hold on the duchy.

In typical historical novel fashion, Heyer does not tell the story from William's perspective, but invents a best friend, Raoul de Harcourt and has him narrate the story. Although that may even be too much of a description for how the book is actually written. The book is written from the perspective of an omniscient narrator, mostly centering around Raoul, although his Saxon friend Edgar, William's wife Matilda, and even William all get their turn. The problem, really, is with the style of the narrative. The book reads more like a medieval chronicle or a retelling of a myth. William was here and did this, he rode here and fought battle here. He's always putting on some sort of armour or clothing described in medieval terms, drinking wine from horns, and galloping on horses. There's not really any description that grounds the story for the reader. Only vague descriptions of where the parties are. I didn't really get a clear sense of place and time, other than it was long ago and far away. I prefer historical novels to really set me in the place and time, and then invite me in, so it becomes the present to me when I am reading and I have to actively recall the current year as I set down the book. This book felt like I was reading a medieval chronicle and I didn't really become absorbed in it. Maybe it's a function of how historical novels were written in 1931.

Also, every now and again, Heyer would put in a somewhat anachronistic conversation. Usually her characters speak in "ye olde English", using somewhat archaic forms of speech and using the ancient terms for things. However, sometimes Heyer would drop the archaic forms of address and have characters speak in a fairly modern way. This was slightly jarring.

And, my usual criticism with historical novels - historical flaws. Now, given that the book was written 80 years ago, it could be that new scholarship has verified some of the problems found in the book and that the specific facts I have problems with were unknown to the writer. Let's hope!

Both of my issues surround William's wife, Matilda. (I guess I've just spoiled the book there, but, really, with historical novels there are no spoilers. It's already happened!) Matilda is the daughter of the Count of Flanders and was married to William after a somewhat "rough wooing". (The legend is that Matilda wouldn't have William, because he was a bastard. He then beat her, and that brought Matilda around. The legend is the basis for what happens in the book.) That is not my historical problem, however. The legend tells that Matilda rejected William because he was a bastard. However, Heyer has Matilda reject William both for his illegitimacy and because she is a widow and had sworn never to marry again. Where did this come from? Now, I am far from an historian, but neither Britain's Royal Families by Alison Weir, nor Wikipedia, mention anything about a first marriage for Matilda. I have no idea where this came from. And, since ultimately it has very little bearing on the story, why put it in?

The second historical falsehood involves the character of Judith of Flanders. In the book, she is described as Matilda's sister. (She marries a Saxon nobleman whose brother Harold is defeated by William at Hastings.) However, Judith was not Matilda's sister. She was Matilda's aunt. A little detail, but important. I understand that Jean Plaidy (another historical novelist) described Judith as Matilda's sister in her novel about the time period, so it may by a case of not enough in depth research. Further, Matilda and Judith are nearly about the same age - so Judith would have been a very young aunt to Matilda! That could explain the confusion about their relationship.

Despite my criticisms, I did enjoy the book and really was interested in the pull of cultures represented by Raoul and Edgar. It's sparked my interest again in this time period, and I may have to check some books out on this from the library. The story was a good one, I just wish the telling of it had been better.

A Queen Among Men

This will be an interesting book review. I bought the book The Lady Queen: The Notorious Reign of Joanna I, Queen of Naples, Jerusalem, and Sicily by Nancy Goldstone, with some Christmas money. I started it right away and quickly got bogged down. I felt the book dragged and that there wasn't enough focus on Joanna. Then various library books and life events intervened and I put the book down for awhile. Then I picked it up again and read through a few more marriages and intrigues before getting sucked back into the pile of library books threatening to go overdue without being read. Eventually I picked up the book again about a week or so ago and tore through it. I was fascinated and wanted to know all about Joanna. So I have finished the book, but it almost feels like I've read two different books!

I think, in order to get an accurate perspective on the book, I'm going to need to read it again, all in one sitting. That's not likely to happen soon, but here are my thoughts on the book after my recent split reading of it.

Joanna was Queen of her own realm in a time when women didn't usually rule their own kingdoms. Even Eleanor of Aquitaine, for all her own power, was nominally just a Queen Consort. (That said, I believe that she was Duchess of Aquitaine in her own right, so she wasn't entirely powerless.) Joanna ruled on the turbulent Italian peninsula from 1343 to 1382. As she was predeceased by her father, she succeeded her grandfather to the throne. Sadly, Joanna was beset by a number of male cousins both from Hungary and from the Italian region who thought that they should be king. Joanna and her sister were involved in various schemes by these cousins and forcible and unhappy marriages were not uncommon. In addition to all of that, Goldstone weaves in the history of the Popes in Italy and Avignon, problems in central Europe (Hungary), wars in France and Spain as well as the battles between the Guelphs and Ghibellines. That's a lot of story for one small book!

That's where I had problems with it initially - I felt that the author was too focused on really trying to set Joanna firmly in her time period and show just how interconnected everything was that she lost sight of Joanna and her story. I understand that all of these other issues were going on at the time - and that they did affect Joanna. However, Joanna's story was complicated enough (especially with all of that family!) that I felt swamped by the additional information. Perhaps that's why I enjoyed the latter half of the book more - there seemed to be more focus on Joanna. Joanna really hit her stride as a Queen and I felt the end of the book reflected that.

One other nitpicky note - I would like the year I'm reading about to be put up in the top right hand/left hand corner of each page. The book covers so much information and packs in so many dates that sometimes I would forget where I was and would have to flip back a few pages to get to the last date with a year attached to it to figure out what was happening. I think that would also help humanize Joanna a little bit - the reader could look at the date and think, Wow, Joanna's only 20 and look at all the stuff she was dealing with at the time! It would help draw a connection between the reader and the subject.

If you are interested in obscure European royalty (that probably shouldn't be obscure!) you should check out The Lady Queen. I would be interested to know how it reads all the way through as opposed to when it's broken up by a long stretch of time. I find Goldstone to be slightly dry at times, but eventually the subject overcomes the writing. Queen Joanna deserves to be better known - although maybe fiction would be a better home for her. I look forward to reading a fictionalized version of this fascinating Queen's life.

De Medici

When reading historical novels, I tend to stick to novels about English history. I know the history better, and I think that there are more of them in English language. However, I recently decided to branch out into French history with The Devil's Queen: A Novel of Catherine De Medici by Jeanne Kalogridis.

For those of you who may not know, Catherine de Medici was Queen of France from 1547 to 1557. There is a lot of interest right now in that period in English history (I would call it middle Tudor - just after Henry VIII and before Elizabeth I) so I'm wondering if some of that interest will spill over into France and the other countries at the time. It is kind of neat to catch the references to some of the Tudor folk we know so well. (Not to mention Mary, Queen of Scots - briefly Queen of France when she married Catherine's son.)

However, I digress. Catherine grew up in Italy as part of the extended de Medici clan. At one point, apparently, she was imprisoned as a child. She eventually married Henri II - at that time just a Prince of France - and they had a number of children. The Dauphin predeceased their father, which eventually paved the way for Henri becoming King after his father, Francois. Henri is also probably very well known for his mistress; the beautiful Diane de Poitiers - who was probably 20 years older or so than the King. (Thanks, Wikipedia, for helping out with these facts!)

The book begins in Catherine's childhood. The unstable political times are set out, and we quickly learn of Catherine's precocious intelligence and early love for astrology. That said, the part where Catherine murders a stableboy to help her and her aunt escape is pure fiction. I like some plausibility in my historical fiction.

Catherine is imprisoned in a number of convents and is finally freed to go live with the Pope, himself a Medici. Catherine is supposed to marry her cousin Ippolito and rule Florence with him and Catherine finds herself in many compromising situations with her cousin. Again, that is another aspect that is problematic - I don't think that the opportunities the author describes would be there.

However, Catherine is married to Henri and moves to France. I enjoyed this part of the book - I liked the author's twist in that Diane was an early passing fancy of Henri's, but he had to keep pretending that she was his chief mistress to appease the factions at court when he really was in love with Catherine. While that may not be historically valid, I thought it was an interesting interpretation of the historical record. Catherine survives the early death of her husband and is the power behind the throne for her sons who succeed as king.

Overall, this book was okay, but didn't really live up to my expectations. A book called The Devil's Queen about Catherine de Medici - I want more. I would have liked a more in-depth look at Catherine's life; the pacing of the book was off. We skipped entire years early on so we could slow down right at the end before the St. Bartholomew's day massacre - which ends the book. I found the pacing slow at the end and may not have minded if we'd gone into all these little historical details before. More historical details altogether would have been nice. I wasn't really pulled into this book like I am with other historical novels. When reading a good historical novel, the reader should have difficulty recalling current time and place when putting the book down. That did not happen here.

I also wanted more showing, less telling. Sure, the author told me that Catherine was intelligent, smart, and ruled well, but I wanted to see that. More of Catherine ruling instead of just sort of hearing about it. I also thought there wasn't enough astrology/mysticism in the book. For someone who was purportedly so interested in astrology, Catherine really only went through a few mysterious ceremonies. Yes, both horrific, but then she'd abstain from anything remotely mystic for long periods of time. I didn't get the sense that astrology was really a passion in her life. I suppose the author was trying to show a different side of Catherine - instead of the ruthless harpy everyone knows, this Catherine had the love of her husband and was at heart a good person, who only turned to the "dark side" of astrology when things were truly desperate. For a "devil's queen" she was not really very bad at all!

This book was an okay read, but not a great one. For a version of Catherine de Medici which mixes in more of the demonic and mystical, try The Master of All Desires by Judith Merkle Riley. Catherine de Medici is one of the supporting players in that book and I think her personality and interest in the supernatural really comes across well in that book. But, if you just want a primer on Catherine de Medici, this book would probably be alright. Hopefully with the interest in this time period in English history, maybe some really excellent writers will adopt this period in French history and give us a true "Devil's Queen".

Ancient Egypt

So, where has my summer gone! Apparently I've been too busy to read. That's not entirely true - I've been busy reading Agatha Christies. I know those aren't everyone's cup of tea, so I've been trying to sneak something else in there on the side.

That something else is Child of the Morning by Pauline Gedge. As you may recall, Ms. Gedge (from Alberta!) is one of my favourite authors. She specializes in novels about Ancient Egypt. I haven't read them all, but I think her earlier works are more my favourite than her later ones. She's also dabbled in a few other genres with a Celtic novel The Eagle and the Raven and a fantasy novel Stargate. Both of them are pretty good - I like Stargate as it has a strong sense of fatalism mixed in with the fantasy elements. (Note - has nothing to do with the movie/TV show Stargate.)

Child of the Morning is the first novel Gedge wrote. But it's good - really good! One reads it and can only marvel that this is a first novel. From the beginning her characterization and scene-setting abilities are spot on. The reader is pulled into Ancient Egypt; a world so far away from ours that it might as well be fantasy. Yet in reading Gedge's books, she makes the characters come to life so the reader has someone to grab onto in this strange, new, exciting, world.

This book is about a female Pharaoh, Hatshepsut. She is maybe not the only female Pharaoh that Ancient Egypt has, but she is certainly one of the best known (after Cleopatra, of course). She is responsible for some beautiful architecture in Egypt. She was also so hated after her death that her successor tried to obliterate her name and image and so erase her from history forever. Fortunately for us, he was unable to do so.

We begin with Hatshepsut as a child; stubborn, autocratic, willful. Spoilt, even. Already with a drive for power and independence. Women in Ancient Egypt apparently had some freedoms denied their sisters in other areas of the Ancient world, but Hatshepsut was a free spirit, even for a princess. The reader observes how Hatshepsut develops and joins her in her quest to become Pharaoh, aided and abetted by her father.

Gedge creates a complete world for Hatshepsut. We learn what the Ancient Egyptians wore (very little, apparently!), ate, drank, and did. The research must have been meticulous in order for this level of detail. But the detail doesn't obscure the story as it often can -rather, it enhances it. Of course, the book was published in 1977, so there are new details about Hapshepsut's life that Gedge could not have known, but it is a remarkable work of research nonetheless.

I also enjoyed how Gedge did not feel the need to end her book on a happy note. It is not a tragic book, but the ending is realistic. The reader is left with sense of loss, but it all makes sense. We remember the happier times documented earlier and are satisfied.

Child of the Morning is an excellent book for anyone interested in Ancient Egypt and a peek into the lives of its royalty. This is an excellent book - an amazing first effort from a very talented writer. I enjoyed Child of the Morning very much and was thoroughly swept away into Ancient Egypt. This is a good read for any time of the year. Summer is good - you can commiserate with the heat in the book. (Although not this summer!) Winter is better - you can immerse yourself into Egypt's shining sands without having to pay for the airfare. Whatever time of year you read it, this book is excellent. Enjoy!

P.S. Also, who doesn't love that the Ancient Egyptians worshipped cats! They knew a thing or two - I know my two rule my house and demand absolute obedience from their puny human servants.

The Queen of Egypt

One of the 2010 popular non-fiction books that I was really excited to read was Cleopatra: A Life by Stacy Schiff. I have just finished the book, and it indeed lived up to my expectations.

This book, obviously, is about Cleopatra. She was the last Pharaoh of Egypt before it became a province (or a part of, somehow) the Roman Empire. We all know about Cleopatra, right? The oversexed, manipulating seductress who was the lover of most of the men in the ancient world. She had 8 husbands, right? Or was that Liz Taylor? This book takes all of those misconceptions and, in retelling the story of Cleopatra's life, explains how our perception of her has been shaped by who wrote the history.

Of course, who wrote the history would be men. And not just any men, Roman men. They had no reason to like Cleopatra and a strong, intelligent woman would be anathema to them. Schiff has to fight through centuries of prejudicial interpretations of Cleopatra's life based upon antagonistic sources. Schiff does an excellent job of peeling back the layers of misogyny and showing us what Cleopatra may have been like.

Sources are a problem for this time period - there are not very many of them and they don't always agree on the facts, can be biased, and can be entirely untruthful as well. But Schiff perserveres and shows the reader what Cleopatra could have been like - indeed, what she should have been like, had we the proper sources and knowledge.

The test of a good non-fiction book is to be sad and slightly exhausted at the end. Sad because the book is over, exhausted by the journey you just took. You take that kind of journey here in Cleopatra. I really felt I had a better understanding of the Egyptian Queen and her place in the Ancient World. Schiff touches on her great romances with Julius Caesar and Mark Antony, as well as her children and family life. But Schiff also looks at Cleopatra as Queen and ruler - at the decisions she had to make, and the success she made of her reign. Schiff made ancient Alexandria come vibrantly alive - it's a place I would like to visit, if they ever invent time travel. (Actually, that's true for Egypt in general - it's really Ancient Egypt I want to visit.)

This is an excellent non-fiction book. I recommend it to any readers who want to learn more about Cleopatra and the drama of the ancient world. I thoroughly enjoyed every page of the book. Cleopatra did not come alive, exactly, in these pages (the sources are too limited and the distance in time too far), but I gained a better understanding of her and her life.

Two points to wrap up with: first, Hollywood has already optioned the book for a movie. Angelina Jolie will be playing the title role. It will be interesting to see if it ends up good, or very bad. Secondly, I would like to point out that Schiff thanks the Rutherford Library at the University of Alberta in her acknowledgements at the back. Thank you, Rutherford Library, for helping make this great book possible! Yay!

Historical Demons

When at the library the other day, I picked up a book by one of my favourite authors: The Master of All Desires by Judith Merkle Riley. I love her mix of spiritual and religious elements into historical situations. Her books are smart and funny and yet have romance as well. After looking her up on Wikipedia (to find the name of the one book of hers [The Oracle Glass] that I really love but they only have at the library in audiobook form so I can get them to order in a paper copy), I was saddened to see that she passed away recently on September 12, 2010. Merkle Riley was very intelligent: she had a Ph.D. and taught in the Department of Government at a college in California. This cleverness comes through in her books which are excellent reads.

(Just a quick note about audiobooks - not really my thing. I quite like them for long car trips: especially Agatha Christie and the Red Dwarf series. When we went across Canada I listened to quite a few Vietnam war stories [husband's pick]. But for everyday, around the house kind of stuff? I'd much rather read, thank you very much. Also for commuting - I don't have an iPod or whatever so I can't really listen to stuff on the bus. Also, I'd rather be listening to stuff around me which I can do while I read, in case there's an emergency or I need to get out of there quickly. So it's very annoying that The Oracle Glass comes only in audiobook form at my local library and not in a paper copy. I'm not planning any long roadtrips soon, and I don't think my husband would enjoy it anyway. Maybe I should just suck it up and buy a copy myself!)

Anyway, on to the book I actually read: The Master of All Desires. The book has many different plots that are all entwined. The book is set in France in the 1550's: a bad time for Protestants and anyone who opposes the Queen, Catherine de Medici. At its heart, it's about a young French lady, Sibille. She is the daughter of a rather impoverished French noble family and is supposed to marry the wealthy next door neighbour. That is, until she shoots him. Accidentally, of course! She flees to the city to stay with her Aunt Pauline and try and free her father - who's been imprisoned as a suspected Protestant. Sibille's father hates her aunt and gives up Sibille to her. Sibille herself is an interesting character: she's been well-educated (for a woman of the time) and sees herself as delicate and poetical.

The book is also about Catherine de Medici, Queen Consort to King Henri II of France. Even though Catherine has given Henri many fine children, he is in love with his mistress, Diane de Poitiers - a woman twice the King's age! Henri ignores Catherine and Catherine schemes to get his love. As such, she employs many magicians and soothsayers: including the famous Nostradamus, who travels to Paris to meet with her. Catherine has heard about the mysterious head of Menander the Deathless. This is a cursed head that is supposed to grant the owner of it whatever the owner desires. However, the wisher should beware, as the wishes are not always granted in the most straightforward manner....

Through a twist of fate, Sibille becomes the possessor of the evil head and is thrust into the Queen's conspiracies, as well as learning a secret about her own past. She meets the acerbic Nostradamus, and has to try and navigate the deadly halls of Catherine's court.

The Master of All Desires is a smart and clever read. The character of Sibille is excellent: she is smart and witty, but tries to hide it under a poetical and soft nature. I liked how Merkle Riley switches between voices: we get Sibille in the first person, but we also get some third-person narration from Nostradamus, Queen Catherine, and Diane de Poitiers. In this way, the reader is informed and aware of all the conspiracies and plots swirling at court, but is engaged with Sibille and her journey to discover her true self.

I pointed out above that Merkle Riley includes spiritual themes in her books: how is that incorporated into The Master of All Desires? Why, by the angel/demon/mystical creature Anael, of course! He is the keeper of history, and has some excellent scenes with Nostradamus. I really enjoy this facet of Merkle Riley's books: she often incorporates angels and demons, and gives the usual historical fiction an extra dimension. I hope I've properly conveyed just how good these books are - they're not the usual types of "religious" fiction at all; the plots and characters just happen to contain angels and demons sometimes. The books are quite witty and smart and very entertaining to read.

I enjoy Merkle Riley's books very much. She didn't write very many, but they're all good. My favourites are: The Master of All Desires, The Serpent Garden and The Oracle Glass. Those three are her stand-alone books. Her other three books are a series about Margaret of Ashbury: A Vision of Light, In Pursuit of the Green Lion, The Water-Devil and also include the religious/spiritual element. Of these, I think I've only read one, and that out of order, so I should go back and read the Margaret of Ashbury series in the proper order as I would probably enjoy the books more. However, if you are just beginning with Merkle Riley, I recommend the stand-alone books first. In fact, I may have to add these titles to my own library - as soon as I get another bookshelf!

The Honourable

In my English history reading, I have noticed that the aristocrats play just as large of a part as the royals in influencing the history of the country. And, time after time, I have lamented the lack of a good book (or series) detailing the history of these aristocratic families so the historian can see how the 3rd Duke of Such-and-Such is related to the 7th Duke of Such-and-Such, how the Barons So-and-So are related to royalty, and what happened to the title of Viscount of This-and-That.

Aristocrats: Power, Grace & Decadence by Lawrence James, is not this book (or series). But it is an interesting and useful read for anyone interested in the aristocracy and the role they played, as a class, in England's history. The aristocracies of England, Scotland, and Ireland are all discussed in this book.

James divides his book into three parts: Ascendancy (1066-1603), describing the growth and development of aristocratic power in England; Equilibrium (1603-1815), discussing the high point of aristocratic power and involvement in politics; and Decline (1815-current), about the aristocrats' declining role in public and private life in England. James writes about peers in general, but illustrates his discussion with anecdotes about various peers along the way.

Overall, I enjoyed this look into England's aristocrats. While many of aristocrats were bad or foolish men, some were deeply involved in learning, the arts, and sports. After all, no one else had the leisure or wealth to invest in new technologies and decorations. Especially in the Hanoverian times, the aristocrats led the way in setting the fashion for all Brits - in fashion, home decor, and gardening. I was interested to read about the development of the aristocrats and their ties to chivalry and ancient Greek ideals. The "Equilibrium" period was a high time for aristocrats as they became less subservient to the King, developed an interest in politics, and amassed great wealth from overseas adventures. James is obviously a supporter of the aristocrats, which is clear in the last chapter as he discusses the reform of the House of Lords which led to the removal of many of the hereditary peers and the installation of life peers. James is strongly against any further reform to the House of Lords. His point is that life peers are appointed by the Queen and can be from all walks of life (as opposed to elected politicians or even hereditary peers). He argues that this allows the House of Lords to have a different view point on issues from the Commons. It is an interesting argument - and one that you certainly could not have made were the house restricted to hereditary peers!

This book is an essential read for anyone interested in English history and wondering about the role of aristocrats in England's development. It is a good overview of the subject. My only critique is that I would have liked the work to be longer - it is a good introduction but I would have liked to delve into the subject a little deeper. I think an expanded version, with each time period given its own volume, would be about right. However, I imagine that I would be in the minority here and that the shorter version would sell better! Despite that one minor criticism I enjoyed the book and it is a useful and interesting addition to my history collection.

Edwardian Immersion

Now that the Canada Reads shenanigans are over, (yes, I finally have Essex County. No, I haven't started it yet.) I can get back to my regularly scheduled reading. First up - one of the books I got for Christmas: The House at Riverton by Kate Morton.

I had never read any books by Morton before, but she is an excellent author. I really enjoyed The House at Riverton and want to read Morton's other books. Morton really gets the sense of time and place right, and creates nuanced and memorable characters.

The heroine of The House at Riverton is Grace, a young girl who becomes a maid in the manor of Riverton House, in England pre-WWI. The story of her time with the Hartford family is contrasted with Grace in the present-day as an old woman. From the very beginning you get the sense that Grace knows about a terrible secret involving the Hartford family. I had many guesses throughout the novel as to the nature of the secret, but I was completely surprised and shocked by the ending. I will not spoil the ending here, but suffice it to say that you will be amazed.

The House at Riverton was a really enjoyable book. I loved the contrast between Grace as a young girl and the present day Grace. There have been so many changes over the course of the 1900's, and the character of Grace really exemplified these changes. I like how the author paced the story - often revealing important events through Grace in the present day, but not taking us back to Grace's memories of the time period of the actual event until later. I enjoyed knowing where I was going without necessarily having all the details - and then the details changing what I thought I knew about the event.

I thought that Morton's grasp of the time period was excellent - especially Grace's trials and tribulations as a maid. What is funny about that is that in January-February, I was watching the BBC miniseries Downton Abbey on PBS. Downton Abbey is about an aristocratic family in England in the years prior to WWI, and the servants who served them. So, basically the same time period as the initial part of The House at Riverton. It was neat to compare the similarities between the two dramas and know that The House at Riverton got so many things right as it was so similar, in many respects, to Downton Abbey. I urge all my readers to check out Downton Abbey - it is an amazing, wonderful series full of excellent characters and gripping stories. I cannot wait until the second season comes out.

I also urge my readers to read The House at Riverton. It is an enjoyable novel and quite historically accurate (at least according to me!). In fact, you should immerse yourself in the Edwardian period (yes, even though I know George V was on the throne from 1910 on it is still, technically, sort of, the Edwardian period) and watch Downton Abbey and read The House at Riverton. You will not be disappointed!

Too Many Wives

Before Christmas, I came up with what I thought was a brilliant plan. I own two history books, by two different authors, about the wives of Henry VIII. I thought it would be really interesting to read the two and compare them. The books are The Six Wives of Henry VIII by Alison Weir, and The Wives of Henry VIII by Antonia Fraser. Then at the library I spotted the book The Six Wives: The Queens of Henry VIII by David Starkey and thought that one more would be great! How interesting it would be to compare how each author saw the wives and interpreted the historical evidence.

Sadly, I was wrong. I finished the Fraser book, and only made it to Anne Boleyn in the Weir and Starkey books. It was just too many wives all at once! However, I think of the three, I preferred Fraser's book. She is sympathetic towards her wives, and I think a sympathetic biographer has a good relationship with her subject and can really pull in the reader's interest. Weir's book is factually excellent, but a little bit dry. Starkey's book is okay: I don't think he liked the wives all that much and boasted too much about his terrific new interpretations of the historical documents which meant that all other writers on the subject were wrong. Here are my notes on the Fraser's and Starkey's books as I was reading them.

Fraser:
"This is a very readable and entertaining look at Henry VIII’s six wives. Despite the fact that it is a non-fiction book, at times it reads like the best kind of historical fiction. Yet the book is thoroughly grounded in solid research. It is a pleasure to read and a good intro to Henry’s fascinating wives. Fraser takes the point that all the wives are to be pitied for being married to Henry VIII and so is sympathetic to all the wives in general. The feeling is transmitted to the readers: I feel sorry for Catherine of Aragon in her struggle against Henry VIII, but then I later feel sorry for Anne Boleyn, the woman who supplanted Catherine of Aragon in Henry’s affections. However, my feelings of pity for Catherine do not lead to corresponding feelings of rage against Anne Boleyn. Instead, one feels sympathy for all the wives caught up in the maelstrom that was Henry VIII’s later romantic life.

The book is split into sections roughly corresponding with the wives’ connection to Henry VIII. Katherine Howard and Anna of Cleves (author’s spellings) are joined together in one section as Anna’s tenure was so brief and she was so quickly supplanted by Katherine Howard. The reader really gets to know each wife well and know her background. Fraser moves beyond the stereotypes of Older Wife, Temptress, Good Wife, Ugly Wife, Bad Girl, and Mother Figure to reveal the personalities behind the crown."

Starkey:

As you can see from my notes below, I disagreed with a number of Starkey's conclusions - and that was only the introduction! As the book went on, it got a little better.

"Starkey seems to be too credulous with his sources and accuses Weir and Fraser of falling into the same romantic trap as Strickland. I would argue not so; they offer a balanced (especially Weir) view of the wives. Fraser is admittedly a little more sympathetic, but that’s okay for me; makes it readable. Already, based upon the introduction, Starkey appears to be too credulous with some of his sources including some of the testimony given by people at all the various court trials surrounding Henry’s confused matrimonial life. Unlike Weir and Fraser, Starkey does not seem to have given any thought as to the circumstances surrounding the testimony. Some of it was probably extracted by torture, others from people desperately trying to save their own skin – self-serving, as it were. You can’t always take that kind of evidence at face value.

Most of the things that Starkey presents as old established “facts” that he’s debunking have already been debunked by Weir and Fraser – they may be established “facts” to the popular mind, but not to the serious historical reader who has already done a lot of reading and research on the wives. For example – discussing a portrait he has apparently “uncovered” of Catherine showing her as blonde/red-haired to prove that she was of the same fairness as Henry instead of the sultry Spanish beauty she is often described as. Um, did he read Fraser or Weir’s books and look at any other portrait of Catherine? Nowhere in those books is she portrayed as a dark-eyed Spanish beauty – in fact Fraser and Weir especially go to some trouble to trace Catherine’s Lancastrian descent. He does not need to “prove” anything that has already been proven by other historians and other portraits – it is very clear that Catherine was just as fair as Henry."

In summary, then, do not try and read three non-fiction books on the same subject matter within a limited amount of time - you will burn out! But for those who are interested in learning more about the wives of Henry VIII (the real version, not the TV-Tudors version!), I will make some final suggestions.

If you are more of a casual historian, read the Fraser book. It is very readable and enjoyable and the reader gets a good sense of the wives and what they were really like, as far as that is possible. However, her family trees are terrible and full of errors, so don't go by them. If you're interested in family trees and a more in-depth look at the subject, read Weir's book. It is a little dryer than Fraser's, but more scholarly. Both books are equally well researched - the difference is in how the material is presented. I don't know if I can recommend the Starkey book having not finished it (I've read the Weir book many times) and having argued with him all through the introduction! The chapters on Catherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn were okay and I did enjoy some aspects of his characterization of Catherine. But ultimately it was just too much information on the same topic for me. Further, he seemed to be very self-congratulatory on his amazing "new" interpretations of the evidence which kind of put me off from the book a little bit. Also, for a book about the wives, it seems fairly Henry-focused. I prefer Fraser's thoughts on the subject: that the women should be pitied for having been married to Henry VIII as it could not have been easy! If anyone does choose to read the Starkey book, I'd be interested in your thoughts on it. And maybe, after a few months, I will pick it up and try again!

The Imaginary Life of Marie Antoinette

It is no secret that I love historical fiction. However, I can and should qualify that statement: I love good historical fiction. Bad historical fiction just leaves me annoyed and ranting. Unfortunately it seems that there is little good historical fiction out there. But I'm always willing to try new authors - even if I end up annoyed and ranting.

My most recent historical fiction read was The Hidden Diary of Marie Antoinette: A Novel by Carolly Erickson. How was it? Well, dear readers, prepare for a rant.

The book started off innocently enough. It purports to be a diary kept by Marie Antoinette up until her execution during the French Revolution in 1793. We begin with the 13 year old Maria Antonia, Austrian Archduchess, daughter of the famed Empress Maria Theresa, and future betrothed of the Dauphin of France. At first, I enjoyed it. The voice of Antonia was fresh, vivacious, and natural, much as I would have imagined the actual princess to be like. I had a few qualms when at one point, Antonia was kissed by her stablehand, Eric, but kept going. Well, then Antonia managed to find herself on a ride all alone with her adoring stablehand. Nothing happened other than more kissing, but I had my doubts. It's not the kissing I mind so much, it's the prospect that an Archduchess was preparing to ride out alone when Eric was sent along. I just don't think that 18th century princesses were able to spend that much, if any time alone. Maybe that was a possibility at the relaxed Austrian court, but definitely not at the exceedingly formal French court, where every moment was regimented by etiquette.

I did enjoy the depiction of the relationship between Antoinette and her husband, the future Louis XVI. It seemed like they had an amicable and natural relationship, even if they weren't in love. Nor did I mind the depiction of Axel Fersen - he was the Queen's great love, apparently. Erickson chooses to have them consummate the relationship, and that's fine. Marie Antoinette deserves some love from someone.

This is where I became very angry with the book. Erickson sends Marie Antoinette off to Sweden with Axel on some sort of diplomatic trade mission. Really? The Queen of France, mother of no male heirs, is sent off for months to Sweden? And the inconsistencies kept on piling up: Marie Antoinette and Axel spend a lot of time alone together - without servants even! Inconceivable for the time. Sweden is described as a land where snow will linger to July, yet a poor peasant's cottage is depicted as having cockroaches. If it's that cold, there would be no cockroaches because it would be too cold to support them! But I read on, wondering vaguely if I'd missed some trip to Sweden in my previous non-fiction reading of Marie Antoinette.

To refresh my memory, I turned to Marie Antoinette: The Journey, the best recent non-fiction biography of her life, by Antonia Fraser. No mention of any trip to Sweden. I quickly turned to the Note To The Reader at the end of Erickson's novel and read this little gem: "So far as is known, Antoinette never went to Sweden;...." NO! She NEVER went to Sweden - just pick up a book and look it up! It's not like this is the 11th or 12th centuries and the facts are hard to come by and are confused. Marie Antoinette was a celebrated and reviled public figure. She lived in the late 1700's. We have lots of sources about her and we know where she was and what she was doing for a good part of her life. And we know she didn't go to Sweden!

This is what I hate about historical fiction: authors who don't follow the story and make stuff up. If you want to make stuff up, write non-historical fiction. Then your characters can do whatever they want. Writing historical fiction is like writing a sonnet: you are constrained by the form, but you can express your creativity and imagination within that form. An excellent historical fiction writer doesn't make stuff up: he or she takes the facts that we know and clothes them with thoughts and feelings. That is the stuff we don't know - why did Marie Antoinette act as she did? What did she think about when she was married to the Dauphin? Did she love her children? Was she scared on her way to the guillotine? Her outside life as she lived it is known: it is her inside life I want to know more about, not some imaginary trips to Sweden with her lover.

I might have been a little more forgiving if the trip was depicted more realistically for the times. Marie Antoinette and Axel would never have been allowed to go off to his estate alone with no servants. Marie Antoinette would have never been sent off on any kind of diplomatic mission if she had not yet given birth to a male heir - probably even if she had borne a male heir! For all her ability in advising her husband, her role was to bear a male heir. End of sentence. And for the Queen to go off to Sweden alone with her lover - what a scandal! It was just so unrealistic that it really spoiled the rest of the book for me.

I did finish the book, but just barely. I thought Marie Antoinette seemed a little more flighty as the book went along. She was probably not the most serious of women, but she seemed a little stupid in this book. Further, I also did not like how people just appeared in her diary with no mention of who they were or what they did. I suppose that is a little more realistic as to how diaries are actually kept: one does not explain who people are, unless one is keeping the diary for posterity. And the villain character of Amelie was really preposterous and one-note.

After I finished the book, I turned to Antonia Fraser's non-fiction to clarify a few of the actual facts about Marie Antoinette and have ended up re-reading most of the book. Now that book is an excellent read. It is non-fiction that reads like fiction.

For those who want to read about Marie Antoinette, I recommend Antonia Fraser's book. I do not recommend Carolly Erickson's book. Read it at your own risk.

Shades of Grey

While happily perambulating through the history section of the library one day, I came across The Sisters Who Would be Queen: Mary, Katherine, and Lady Jane Grey: A Tudor Tragedy by Leandra de Lisle. Given that my hands and bag were already filled with books, I reluctantly passed it by, but made a note of the book for future reference. The future is now, my friends, and I was fortunate enough to find this book the next time I was at the library. (Although I'm not sure that anyone else but me reads historical non-fiction - at least at my library branch. The section is always empty, but, sadly, not quiet given its proximity to the children's book and play area.)

The Sisters Who Would be Queen is about a little known branch of the Tudor family; Jane, Katherine and Mary Grey, the grand-nieces of Henry VIII and purported heirs to the throne. This unfortunate blood relationship led to imprisonment and even death for one of the sisters. Lady Jane Grey is probably best known as the Nine-Days Queen shortly after Edward VI and prior to Mary I, but her sisters Katherine and Mary also occupied important spots in the Tudor succession plan. This book tells the story of all of them.

The grandmother of Jane, Katherine, and Mary was the famous Mary Tudor, sister of Henry VIII. Ravishingly lovely, the beautiful and spoilt young princess was married to Louis XII, the old French King. Mary was willing enough to trade happiness for a crown, but reportedly exhorted a promise from her brother that she could chose her next marriage for love alone. The marriage lasted three months; the aged French King supposedly driven to his death from the exertions in the marriage bed. Mary was now a widow, and free to choose her own husband, as she thought. Her choice was the handsome and virile Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk and Henry's close friend. He knew he shouldn't marry the lovely widow - especially since there was a chance that she could be pregnant with the heir to France. But he succumbed to Mary's tears, and married her in secret in France. Henry VIII was furious when he found out, but eventually came around.

(It is interesting to note that all of Henry VII's adult children had multiple marriages except for his eldest son Arthur, who married only once - Catherine of Aragon. Mary Tudor married twice, and Margaret Tudor married three times. And, of course we all know about Henry VIII's six wives! However, multiple marriages were common in those days - whether through divorce or death. Charles Brandon too had a very chequered marital career - marrying for inheritance and having marriages set aside while keeping the inheritance. I believe that Mary was his third wife, and he would marry once more before he was done.)

At any rate, this marriage was a happy one, and Mary and Charles had three children; Henry, Frances, and Eleanor. Both Frances and Eleanor made good marriages into the English nobility. Frances married Henry Grey, Marquess of Dorset, and had three daughters: Jane, Katherine, and Mary. This is where de Lisle's story begins.

Who were the Grey sisters? Why were three noble's daughters with a dash of royal blood so important? When Henry VIII lay dying, he made a will. And in this will, he left the crown to the heirs of his sister Mary, after the extinction of his own heirs: Edward, Mary and Elizabeth. He ignored the usual rules of primogeniture which would see the crown pass to the Scottish descendants of his sister Margaret and picked the line of his younger sister Mary instead - meaning that Frances Brandon Grey was now the heiress to the throne after Elizabeth.

Edward came to the throne as Edward VI and began a very Protestant reign. The next heir was the Catholic Mary, and this did not suit the Protestant nobles at all. The Protestant faction instead focused on young Lady Jane Grey and her devoutly Protestant upbringing. Edward was forced to make a change to his father's will - the crown now going to Frances' heirs instead of Mary or Elizabeth. After Edward, all the heirs were female. After his two sisters, Mary and Elizabeth, there were his cousins, the Grey sisters and their mother Frances, and Frances' sister Eleanor Clifford and her daughter Margaret. And if one looks to the line of Margaret Tudor, there was also an heiress in place in the person of Mary, Queen of Scots!

When Edward died young, the nobles seized their chance and placed the Protestant Jane on the throne. Given her dash of Royal blood, and position close to the throne, Jane had been given an excellent education. She also seems to have been a very scholarly and intelligent woman as well, surpassing even Elizabeth I, whom she lived and studied with for awhile in the house of Henry VIII's last Queen, Catherine Parr. Jane matched her intellectual brilliance with a very strong will as well. She was devoutly Protestant and determined to uphold the new religion. Although thrust onto the throne by the machinations of her father and other nobles, she did not hesitate. Her upbringing gave her the training to be Queen and she would exercise the royal power.

Unfortunately for Jane, Mary I was backed by the people and the rebellion failed. Jane was imprisoned and eventually executed. Mary I took the throne and tried to revert England back to Catholicism. Katherine and Mary Grey did not want to suffer the fate of their sister, and kept quiet. Protestantism came back with the reign of Elizabeth I. Her nearest Protestant heirs were the Grey sisters - Katherine and Mary. Elizabeth refused to name a successor, and was fearful that she may be cast from the throne in favour of Katherine or Mary. She did not want them to marry and beget more Protestant heirs who would be a threat to her position.

But Katherine was lovely, romantic, and impetuous. She secretly married a Seymour descendant, Edward Seymour, Earl of Hertford. When Elizabeth found out, she was furious and cast the pregnant Katherine and her husband Edward in the Tower. Katherine's son, another Edward, was born in the Tower. At last, there was a Protestant male heir! Elizabeth refused to release the couple. However, Katherine and Edward had a sympathetic jailer who allowed them to meet. Sure enough, Katherine was pregnant again. Elizabeth's fury knew no bounds. The family was separated and Katherine never saw her husband or eldest son again. She eventually died in captivity.

And what of Mary Grey? She too made a secret marriage with a trusted palace servant, Thomas Keyes. While he was not at the same station in life she was at, this seems to have been a love match. Mary was also not as physically robust as her sisters, and may have been a hunchback or had some sort of other deformity. She may have also thought that such an unimportant marriage dynastically would be beneath Elizabeth's notice. Sadly, she was wrong. Mary and Thomas were immediately separated and jailed apart until Thomas died. Mary was then released, to live out the rest of her days as a widow.

De Lisle really focuses on the life and times of the three sisters and discusses in detail their upbringing and the events that surrounded their tumultuous lives. I really got the sense of the family dynamics involved in Jane's elevation to the throne and the various factions and how they tried to seize power. The enmity and jockeying for position between the Catholics and Protestants is very clearly outlined also. But de Lisle does not forget her main subjects and you empathize with the brilliant Jane, beautiful Katherine, and strong-willed Mary. De Lisle overturns many of the common myths about Jane and her sisters, and the book is an excellent marriage of good scholarship with superior storytelling skills.

The reader really gets drawn into the lives of the sisters, especially Jane. De Lisle explodes many of the common myths about Jane and looks past the Victorian victim archetype she had become to show the intelligent and strong-willed woman underneath. She was not a purely unwilling victim of the plots of her family. When the throne was given to her, she took it intending to rule and not be a mere figurehead for her family and the Protestant faction. She was a victim in the sense that she was not the mastermind behind the plots, but she was still willing to make the most of her chance to exercise royal power. When Jane is eventually executed on the Tower block where so many other traitors came to die, it will an extremely hard-hearted reader that will not shed a tear or two for this brave young woman. She was only 17 at the time of her death.

I know much less about Katherine and Mary and this book really helped bring them out from under Jane's shadow. While Katherine was not the equal of Jane scholastically, she was just as strong-willed in matters of the heart, and her story with her love Edward Seymour would make a lovely novel - except for the sad ending. Again, Mary seemed to be overshadowed by both Jane and Katherine, and while the author tries her best, Mary still remains something of an enigma. And that, however, seems to be the way she was regarded by the people of the day - certainly not as important as Jane or even Katherine, she was somewhat relegated to a supporting position. But, sadly, it was not enough for Mary to escape the wrath of Elizabeth for Mary's own secret marriage.

This is an excellent book for anyone who wants to know more about the Tudor time period and is tired of reading about the usual subjects: Henry and his numerous wives, or the glorious reign of Elizabeth. There were other Tudors who were just as interesting as Henry and Elizabeth. These Tudors are Jane, Katherine, and Mary Grey, and you will be moved and drawn into their sad and tragic lives in The Sisters Who Would be Queen. It is that most lovely of books - a non-fiction that reads like a novel. A truly excellent read.

Fictional Scandals

Anyone who reads this blog on a regular or even occasional basis knows the love I have for Alison Weir as a supremely excellent non-fiction chronicler of Britain's Royals. She is the author of my favourite book, Britain's Royal Families: The Complete Genealogy, and numerous other books on such varied topics as the wives of Henry VIII, Katherine Swynford (mistress and wife to John of Gaunt - ancestress of the Tudors and today's Royal Family), Isabelle of France (Queen to Edward II), and the murder of Lord Darnley (second husband of Mary Queen of Scots and ancestor of today's Royal Family). Recently, Weir has decided to augment her excellent non-fiction works with historical fiction.

Her first historical fiction book was Innocent Traitor. It is about Lady Jane Grey, grand-niece of Henry VIII and briefly Queen of England. It got rave reviews and was a success. I was interested in trying out Weir's fiction and found her second historical fiction attempt on the shelf at my library: The Lady Elizabeth. This book covers the life of Queen Elizabeth I from her childhood up to her accession to the throne.

The two best known Tudor monarchs are probably Henry VIII and Elizabeth I - but many people forget about the two Tudors in between, Elizabeth's half-siblings; Edward VI and Mary I. This book covers Elizabeth's childhood and young womanhood growing up during those reigns. The book is not bad and somewhat enjoyable. It is not as enthralling as a Sharon Kay Penman historical novel, but it gets into the feelings and opinions of the main characters more than a usual non-fiction book. It is almost half-way between non-fiction and fiction. I think I prefer Weir's non-fiction works, but I would like to read Innocent Traitor and her other fiction works before I decide fully.

You can tell as you read the book that Weir really knows her stuff - she knows the relationships between people, the clothes they wore, the food they ate, and how people acted. She just needs to draw the reader a little bit more into her world. However, I thought her portrayal of Elizabeth was engaging and sympathetic. Some people may quibble with Elizabeth's seeming precociousness in her scholastic abilities, but Elizabeth was quite a brilliant monarch and well-known for her intelligence at a young age, so the characterization is apt. I also enjoyed the character of Mary. Mary is often ignored and neglected by historians or writers who focus only on her nickname as "Bloody Mary" for her suppression of Protestantism during her reign. But Mary was also an intelligent, thoughtful woman. She loved her half-sister and half-brother very much, and perhaps in them she found the children she would never have. I think it is time for a sympathetic portrait of Elizabeth's big sister.

As usual, I have my quibbles. And while this is a major one which normally would make me throw the book away in disgust, I persevered and finished anyway and still enjoyed the novel. When Elizabeth was in her middle teens (14-16), she lived for a while with Queen Katherine Parr, recent widow of Henry VIII. Before Katherine's marriage to Henry VIII, the twice widowed lady was contemplating a third marriage, for love, to one Thomas Seymour, brother of the late Queen Jane Seymour and uncle to the future Edward VI. Unfortunately, Henry's interest in Katherine disrupted those plans, and Katherine dutifully married the King. However, Henry's death left Katherine a widow again, and this time she was determined to marry for love. She married Tom Seymour a mere 4 months after the King's death and they set up house in Chelsea.

Elizabeth came to live with Katherine and Tom. Tom soon realized the attraction that Elizabeth held for him - not only in her person but in her position - she was the next heir but one. It is well documented by history, and by Weir, that Tom began visiting Elizabeth in her bedroom early in the morning, generally before she was dressed and was still in her flimsy nightgown. He would engage in horseplay and tickle and tease the young girl. Katherine witnessed the horseplay herself on a few occasions and even participated in a jest in the garden; holding Elizabeth while Tom slashed her mourning gown into ribbons. Tom's scandalous behaviour towards Elizabeth and Katherine acquiescence and participation are well documented. But Weir takes it one step further: she has Tom and Elizabeth sleep together - just once! - which results in a pregnancy for the young Elizabeth. Elizabeth is sent away in disgrace to the country manor of Cheshunt, where a midwife attends her secret miscarriage. This leads to her determination not to give herself to any man again, and to hold herself up as the pinnacle of virginity.

That is where I disagreed with Weir - I do not believe that Seymour and Elizabeth had any sort of relationship. He probably wanted one, but I don't believe he got away with it. I think there is some sort of flimsy historical evidence about a midwife attending a birth for a lady that looked like Elizabeth, but the veracity is doubtful. I understand that Weir used the incident to further cement Elizabeth's distrust of men and marriage, but I thought the plot twist was unnecessary and that Elizabeth already had enough reason to be wary of men and marriage without suffering through a pregnancy by Thomas Seymour. Usually, a large disagreement with the characterization of a historical person would make me put the book down, but I persevered, and finished anyway. If that bit was taken out, I would have enjoyed the book a lot more.

What is interesting is that in her afterword, Weir states that she firmly believes that Elizabeth lived and died the as the true Virgin Queen she was. Weir has been outspoken as a historian that there is no definite proof that Elizabeth was not the Virgin Queen she depicted herself to be. However, despite "going against her instincts as a historian", she enjoyed the artistic freedom to depict Elizabeth's life otherwise. I'm not entirely sure I agree with that - sure, books have to sell copies, but usually history is interesting enough that the fact presents the best story, even when fictionalized. I hope that readers of the book will remember that it is fiction and that they should look elsewhere for fact.

Overall, this book was not bad and had some really positive elements. I did enjoy the characterization of Elizabeth, but had some questions about the plot points. Still, historical fiction is better than most other genres any day. Even my cat is a historical fiction fan - she really got into this book!

Scandalous History

With a title like Royal Affairs: A Lusty Romp Through The Extramarital Adventures That Rocked the British Monarchy, how can you not want to pick up the book and read it? I grabbed it off the shelf, took it home, and read it. I'm not quite sure that the book lived up to its title, but it was an enjoyable read overall.

The author of Royal Affairs is Leslie Carroll. She writes women's fiction (whatever that is), historical fiction (under a pen name), and now historical non-fiction. While I may not entirely agree with her points in Royal Affairs, Carroll seems like a likeable person overall. I checked out her blog (www.royalaffairs.blogspot.com) and it was quite interesting. You can tell that she is passionately interested in history, and there were some good links to some other websites of historical interest. I especially enjoyed her discussion of The Tudors, the new BBC show of the chequered marital career of the infamous Henry VIII. When people find out I'm a history buff, they always ask if I'm watching The Tudors and then are surprised when I say no. I'm not watching it because I'm a history buff and the show gets so many things wrong! Carroll shares my concerns about the actor who portrays Henry VIII (too small and dark - Henry was tall, muscular, fair to red-headed, and handsome [until he got old and fat]) and the liberties taken with Henry's sisters (combined into one person, married to the King of Portugal, and supposedly murdered said King. Really? The true historical version of the stories of Margaret and Mary Tudor is much more interesting than that fictionalized balderdash. Read Sisters to the King by Maria Perry for the true story.) (Also, if the show ever moves on from the Tudors to the Stuarts, they're gonna have some 'splaining to do!) [For those who need 'splaining now, let me know and I'll briefly (promise!) explain in the comments how the Tudors turned into the Stuarts.] At any rate, while I didn't entirely enjoy her book, I do like Leslie Carroll as an author and may check out some more of her non-fiction and fiction works.

On to the book. The book is, obviously, about scandalous royal affairs. However, Carroll takes a broad definition of the word "affair": whereas I would define an affair as a consensual sexual relationship between two people, at least one of whom is married; Carroll takes a broader view and looks at general relationships between royals and a special subject. Using my definition, a few of the "affairs" she talks about would not be in the book at all: Henry VIII and Jane Seymour, Charles II and Frances Stuart, and Victoria and John Brown.

Where I have my problems with the book is the various couples that Carroll chooses to talk about or not talk about. For example: Henry VIII and Jane Seymour did not have an affair! They did not sleep together prior to marriage - in fact, Jane Seymour very clearly held Henry at arm's length and protected her virtue by returning his gifts while he was still married to Anne Boleyn. That does not mean that Jane did not strive and plan to be Queen, but she was not Henry's mistress before he married her. Sure, Anne's downfall and Jane's triumph make a good story, but they are hardly royal "affairs". This story would have fit better in a book about royal marriages - which I understand she's working on.

Also, Charles II and Frances Stuart. Charles II slept with a lot of women. That is historically documented. One of these women was NOT Frances Stuart. He wanted to sleep with her, but she refused him. The infatuated Charles used her portrait as the representation of Britannia on a victory medal struck to commemorate military success. This same portrait was later used on British coinage as the representation of Britannia. The author's point is that Frances made a scandal by refusing to sleep with Charles II when it was open season for lust and lechery at his court, but then it's not really a royal affair - it's more a story about something that didn't happen.

I would rather have had Carroll use the space in her book to tell stories about affairs that did happen. Of course, she cannot put every affair in, which is probably why Henry I (1100-1135: one of the Norman kings) and his 25 illegitimate children did not make it in. (More mistresses and children than even the profligate Charles II!) However, she missed one of the most important royal affairs in British Royal History: that of the widow of Henry V, the French Princess Catherine and her servant Owen Tudor. No, that name is not a coincidence: Katherine and Owen are the grandparents of Henry VII, founder of the Tudor dynasty. Catherine was the young and beautiful widow of the war-mongering Henry V. Henry and Catherine had one child, Henry VI, who became King before he was even one year old. Catherine was not part of the regency council which actually governed the realm, but as the Dowager Queen, she remained in England and was still vaguely important. Catherine fell in love with her Welsh keeper of the wardrobe, Owen Tudor. Catherine and Owen had at least 5 children before her death in childbirth in 1437. Catherine and Owen were probably not even married: there is no evidence of a marriage and we're not even sure exactly how many children they had. What is sure is that two boys, Jasper and Edmund, survived to adulthood. Edmund survived long enough to impregnate his 13 year old wife Margaret Beaufort with the child that would become Henry VII. Jasper had no legitimate issue, but guarded the rights of his nephew fiercely. Henry VII succeeded to the throne by right of conquest (and English royal blood through the Beaufort line), defeating Richard III at the battle of Bosworth in 1485.

Now, if that affair's not scandalous, I don't know what is! Certainly more scandalous (and of more dynastic importance) than Victoria and John Brown, or Fredrick Duke of York (one of the Hanovers) and Mary Anne Clarke. And if one quibbles that Catherine is not really "British" as she was part of the family by marriage and not blood, well, then the tales of Caroline of Brunswick, Princess of Wales (wife of George IV and mother of Princess Charlotte) would also have to be excised. Sure, Caroline was a cousin of George, but she was not considered part of the English Royal Family until she married in to it.

In general, the research was good. She has quite a large bibliography of books, articles, and websites in the back of the book. As per usual, I have my quibbles: when she's talking about Mary Boleyn, she mentions the possibility that Mary's son Henry (nominally by Mary's husband William Carey) was actually the son of Henry VIII as we are unsure when Henry VIII and Mary's affair actually ended. Henry Carey was born in 1526, about the time that Henry VIII started his relationship with Anne Boleyn. However, the author does not mention at all the possibility that Henry VIII may be the father of Mary Boleyn's other child, Catherine Carey. In fact, it is much more likely that Henry VIII is father of Catherine instead of Henry because Catherine was born in 1524! (And, incidentally, was the mother of Lettice Knollys who married Elizabeth I's favourite Robert Earl of Leicester and was mother of Elizabeth's other favourite Robert Earl of Essex.) But there is no mention of this in the book at all.

Further, in her last entry about Prince Charles, the current Prince of Wales, she mentions that Charles will be the first English-born King to be divorced when he succeeds to the throne. According to my research, this is only partly true. (Strictly speaking, Henry VIII was single when he came to the throne and sought annulments, not divorces.) The wiggle-words are "English-born": George I was divorced from his wife Sophia Dorothea (she had an affair - very scandalous!) when he became king in 1714, but, of course, he was born in Hanover.

However, I have found information which may indicate that King John was divorced when he became King in 1199. My favourite book, Britain's Royal Families by Alison Weir, indicates that King John was divorced from his first wife Isabella (or Hawise or Joan or Eleanor) probably before he became King, or at the very least shortly after he became King. (The exact date is not recorded.) John went on to marry the young and attractive Isabelle of Angouleme - their story is a good read as well. Weir is exceedingly thorough in her research and very careful with her terms and will indicate particularly if a marriage ended by divorce or by annulment - two very different things. John was born at Beaumont Palace, Oxford, England. So, I am inclined to think that perhaps King John was the first English-born divorced King - or very nearly, depending on exact dates.

I think the real problem with this book is that it's too basic for me. I've moved beyond this sort of "popular history" and tend to prefer more academic works. Otherwise, I just nitpick at all the things that aren't exactly true or that are open to interpretation. I know too much know to really be satisfied with this type of book. It's still an interesting book, and good for readers casually interested in history or romance, but a serious history reader will probably find it too light.

History Master?

Everyone knows that I love historical fiction. There are so many amazing stories from history just crying out for a little good fictionalization so the reader can really get inside the heads of the people involved. Some good non-fiction historical writing will do this for you. All good historical fiction should do this for you - and all my favourite authors (Sharon Kay Penman, Judith Merkle Riley, Fiona Buckley) make it happen. Cynthia Harrod-Eagles? Not quite.

How did I learn about Ms. Harrod-Eagles? Well, it involves Wikipedia. After I read my book on the Stuarts (see sometime in September) I was curious about other members of the Stuart family, especially the children of Elizabeth the Winter Queen (daughter of James I, ancestress of the Hanovers and today's royal family). One of her children was Prince Rupert (for those Canadians out there - he's the namesake of the famous Rupert's Land that eventually became part of Canada). He was a brave and dashing cavalier who spent his life helping his English relative Charles II reclaim the throne. So, at any rate, I was reading the wiki article about Prince Rupert when it mentioned that he was a main character in a historical novel by the same Cynthia Harrod-Eagles. A few more wiki-links later, and I learn that Ms. Harrod-Eagles is a historical fiction writer who has written a whole series about the Morland family - a wealthy/noble/aristocratic family in England from War of the Roses times to nearly present day. I love epic stories of aristocratic families, so I put the first book on hold and waited anxiously for it to come.

(I should point out here the dangers of over-reliance on Wikipedia - a typo in Harrod-Eagles' list of works misstated her first book as The Foundling instead of correctly as The Founding. Which made it a little difficult to find in the library catalogue at first!)

The first book in Harrod-Eagles' Morland dynasty series is The Founding. It looks like the books are being reissued and I have a fancy shiny new version. The Founding takes place around the time of the Wars of the Roses. Mad King Henry VI is on his throne, and members of the York family are trying to topple him and establish the Yorkist heir in his place. (Now is not the time or place for a long discussion on the Wars of the Roses, so for anyone interested, I urge you to check out Lancaster & York: The Wars of The Roses by Alison Weir. It is an incredibly detailed book about that time period that should hopefully answer all your questions. Or if you don't want to read that book, post your questions in the comments below and I'll answer them [as I've read and own the book].)

The book is not really about the struggle between Lancaster and York as it is more about how the family deals with it. Eleanor Courteney is a young woman of good family but little fortune who is allied with the Lancastrian cause. Her ward-holder arranges a marriage between her and the son of a wealthy sheep farmer in England's north - Yorkshire. At first Eleanor is appalled by the low conditions of her new husband's home, and by her new husband, the shy and worshipping Robert Morland. However, she manages to make a place for herself and build up a great empire, while turning the Morland family into a grand family of England's north.

Real historical characters pop up throughout the book. Eleanor is passionately in love with Richard, Duke of York (father of Edward IV), and transfers her family's allegiance to the Yorkist cause - losing some sons and grandsons in battle along the way. Eleanor has 13 children with Robert - not all of them living, and not all of them necessary for the plot (such as the older daughter Anne and younger son John) (unless their descendants come back in another novel down the line). But this book isn't really about what is happening to the Yorks and Lancasters, and sometimes the interaction feels a little forced. Yes, people would have been greatly affected by the Wars of the Roses, but sometimes it just feels like too much that this non-noble family would have been so friendly with the Yorks. At least, however, I agree with the characterizations of these main players in the Yorkist-Lancastrian feud. (For those of you wanting some truly excellent historical fiction about the Wars of the Roses - and specifically the Yorks and Lancasters - read The Sunne in Splendor by Sharon Kay Penman. This is a superb novel and an excellent read about that time period and the motivations of the main parties during this turbulent time in England's history.)

So, with all this historical realism, what was wrong with the book? It never pulled me away from my time into its time like the best Sharon Kay Penman novels will do. At times I felt like I was reading a monk's chronicle of what happened. She had this baby, she had that baby, this child got married, this child had that baby and etc.. Did I feel any emotion or cry when the sons died? No - and usually I'd need a kleenex or two if I really cared about the characters. There's no real sense of setting and place - there are descriptions of the sumptuous clothes worn by Eleanor (which is good - I like clothing descriptions) (at times they seemed a little too sumptuous - this is not even a noble family!), but the book didn't have that same sense of reality one gets from Penman's books where you feel like you really are there. That's not to say that Harrod-Eagles needs to spend paragraphs and paragraphs on description, but sometimes I never really felt like I was anywhere - the characters didn't even seem to acknowledge where they were.

Also, I understand the need for a family tree, sort of. (All my favourite non-fiction books have family trees!) But I almost wished they didn't have one, because when I wasn't sure where a plot line was going to go, I could just flip to the family tree and say, oh, okay, don't worry, he doesn't die now, or oh, this baby's going to be a girl. So maybe a little too much information here?

Speaking of too much information, sometimes there were too many character names. Don't bother in calling the maid Beatrice for 3 pages when in the next chapter you've jumped 3 years, explain that Beatrice has gone off to be married, and then you never hear from her again. I didn't need to know she was named Beatrice! There were other, more important characters that I should have focused on.

I'm also wondering how accurate it was - the way that some of the young ladies in the book behaved was not exactly how I pictured young ladies of gentle birth of that time to be acting. It is difficult - I understand that - the modern woman needs a modern heroine so she can have a point of entry into the book. A woman's lot has changed drastically since the 1400's and I think it can be hard for modern women to realize just how restrictive life was before, well, even 1970 I would say. But there seemed a lot of running around and sneaking out of the house that a parent wouldn't countenance now, nevermind in the 1400's when a young woman was the property of her family.

The book was published in 1980, so perhaps styles of historical fiction have changed since the book was published. Despite my lack of reaction to the book, I am curious enough to want to know what happens to the other Morlands, so I will pick up the next book in the series. I would argue with the blurbs on the back of the book - it's not a "masterpiece of research" nor is it a "page turner" nor is it "The yardstick by which all historical novels are measured." (Obviously, for me, that's Penman.) But it's an okay read and a fairly interesting story, despite my criticisms. I'll try a couple more in the series - maybe I'll like some of the other family members better.

I wouldn't mind some feed-back from my other historical-fiction minded readers out there. (I know there's at least one of you!) Have you read any of the Morland dynasty series? How were they? What do you think of Harrod-Eagles? Are my criticisms apt, or too harsh? Let me know your thoughts on Harrod-Eagles - and do go out and read some Penman. She's excellent!