tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30127217518967529232024-02-07T19:10:55.952-05:00Voracious MindQuestions about history, about historical fiction, or about The Tudors? E-mail me at: voraciousmindbooks@gmail.compilgrimchickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13808106043964544413noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3012721751896752923.post-63825915547591439342013-08-11T15:47:00.001-04:002013-08-11T15:47:50.066-04:00The Tudors Fact Check: William Compton<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrOu65dIkrp7jDx6B4NMRL3A1GTdHE3uEgeb6-xNblAcf1GQ7l0XoRai9EozogPWarDgS9z5HkZMuDn-NIzQ1kg6Y5pnmthCytEydCsv8XzruvqAH5sW_mu75HW36DSv6v31N3sRE_4w/s1600/William+Compton+Reclining.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrOu65dIkrp7jDx6B4NMRL3A1GTdHE3uEgeb6-xNblAcf1GQ7l0XoRai9EozogPWarDgS9z5HkZMuDn-NIzQ1kg6Y5pnmthCytEydCsv8XzruvqAH5sW_mu75HW36DSv6v31N3sRE_4w/s1600/William+Compton+Reclining.jpg" height="212" width="320" /></a></div>
William Compton features prominently in the first season of the series, <em>The Tudors</em>. He is cast as a close friend to King Henry VIII, among several other young men, participating in festivities, tournaments, and generally enjoying what having a best buddy in the big chair has to offer. <br />
<br />
Notable details of his story, as portrayed in the series, include: Compton telling Henry that Charles Brandon had married Henry's sister, Margaret, Compton carrying a large tree as a joke during a tournament, Compton pursuing a homosexual relationship with composer and musician, Thomas Tallis, his "common-law" marriage to Lady Anne Hastings, and his death during an outbreak of the sweating sickness plague. <br />
<br />
So, is any of this true?<br />
<br />
<strong>Did William Compton tell Henry VIII that Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, married his sister?</strong><br />
In the series, Brandon returns to England having married Margaret somewhere on the way home from Portugal after she smothered her husband, the elderly king. He sets up a meeting in a tavern with Compton, explaining to him what happened and asking him to intervene on his behalf. In the series, it is Compton who, at court, tells Henry what happened.<br />
<br />
No, in reality, he did not. In fact, Charles Brandon married Mary Tudor (the character is called Margaret in the series) while she was in France. Her husband, the elderly King of France, died months into their marriage, and Henry sent Charles to retrieve her. Mary, who had been in seclusion in a traditional form of French mourning, demanded that Charles marry her then and there, and he did. Immediately grasping the ramifications of his actions, he actually wrote to Cardinal Thomas Wolsey to ask for his intervention on their behalf. Henry heavily fined Brandon for marrying his sister without his consent, but he also allowed them to celebrate a large, public wedding in England.<br />
<br />
<strong>Did Compton carry a tree as a joke during a jousting tournament?</strong><br />
During a jousting tournament, in which Compton and Henry both participate, Compton's squire hands him a large tree trunk to serve as a lance as a joke.<br />
<br />
Notably, the man who carried the tree trunk was another courtier, Nicholas Carew.<br />
<br />
<strong>Did Compton and Thomas Tallis engage in a homosexual relationship?</strong><br />
In the series, William Compton, impressed by his musical talents, pursues a homosexual relationship with Thomas Tallis. <br />
<br />
None of that is true.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxaZNfTIE0JN__RY-JNAdGIw7dEsFsgTmHqRTqpQLVuoURT9F9-Kccrr1kKFfDJpr8q2vj63MbK8HGYCporWwq43DAk1M4w2AzJxSfToW33Z2Uo3KPMkeGg7ZGofB2pIkFdI5zCGIdYw/s1600/Thomas+Tallis+Tudors.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxaZNfTIE0JN__RY-JNAdGIw7dEsFsgTmHqRTqpQLVuoURT9F9-Kccrr1kKFfDJpr8q2vj63MbK8HGYCporWwq43DAk1M4w2AzJxSfToW33Z2Uo3KPMkeGg7ZGofB2pIkFdI5zCGIdYw/s1600/Thomas+Tallis+Tudors.jpg" height="320" width="279" /></a></div>
Thomas Tallis did exist, however, although his career only seemingly took off during the end of Henry VIII's reign. It did, in fact, continue throughout the reigns of Edward VI, Mary I, and Elizabeth I. It is generally thought that Thomas was born around the beginning of the 16th century. He did not appear in the royal court until 1543, much too late as the first season of the series is generally concerned with events that took place in the 1520s. In the series, although it isn't stressed, William Compton is often portrayed as sitting out of the flirtations in the royal court. This is only "explained" indirectly by his pursuit of Tallis and subsequent short relationship with him. <br />
<br />
In the series, Thomas married a young woman named Joan who lost her twin sister to the sweating sickness. Although Thomas did marry a woman named Joan, the rest of that story is a fabrication. Thomas died in 1585 after a very long, successful musical career.<br />
<br />
<strong>Was Compton in a "common-law" marriage with Anne Hastings?</strong><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxrQQYeOdNg52H7_PbiTroARz0GDmf_2-9dd61hkDn1JGhMt4o8_S9E5Wz9MihyaAjlEv7iq30Bdwp-sV-kq_4JxRvflMl-aPhMdNYg56qneTVCUGAFU5oG1ejhDV-X10x-dULKnjSUQ/s1600/Anne+Hastings+Tudors.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxrQQYeOdNg52H7_PbiTroARz0GDmf_2-9dd61hkDn1JGhMt4o8_S9E5Wz9MihyaAjlEv7iq30Bdwp-sV-kq_4JxRvflMl-aPhMdNYg56qneTVCUGAFU5oG1ejhDV-X10x-dULKnjSUQ/s1600/Anne+Hastings+Tudors.jpg" /></a></div>
Anne Hastings is first introduced in <em>The Tudors </em>as the daughter of the Duke of Buckingham. Henry makes a wager with Charles Brandon that he would never succeed in seducing Anne. Charles, as he does many times in the first season, lands Anne in bed. Unfortunately for both of them, the Duke of Buckingham finds them together--Brandon leaves with a cruel jibe. Buckingham demands that Henry punish Charles, which he is unwilling to do. Later, Buckingham, who is descended from the Plantagenets, devises a plot to kill Henry and set himself as king. This plot is discovered and he is executed, his daughter watching the gruesome scene.<br />
<br />
Anne Hastings appears again after William Compton succumbs to the sweating sickness later in the season. The physician calls her in to tell her what happened, addressing her as Compton's common-law wife. She breaks down, approaching Compton's body much closer than is advisable, and later, dies of the plague herself. Henry VIII later receives Compton's affects, instructing that they be sent to Anne.<br />
<br />
This story is a little more complicated.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8MS0PWWFAcob4_uny9chzeELWrPkv-y6-8_sd0s6T0pBuy8k8Lm0-xwJBDxNa-dBpJ8rjHyKeY9X-lMoIj0USrQGujdFGBgI0KmGP_lRf4zyvIk3DUmVkesiedWkb55D3eSihmIggsg/s1600/Anne+Hastings.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8MS0PWWFAcob4_uny9chzeELWrPkv-y6-8_sd0s6T0pBuy8k8Lm0-xwJBDxNa-dBpJ8rjHyKeY9X-lMoIj0USrQGujdFGBgI0KmGP_lRf4zyvIk3DUmVkesiedWkb55D3eSihmIggsg/s1600/Anne+Hastings.jpg" height="320" width="269" /></a></div>
Anne Hastings was actually the sister of the Duke of Buckingham, not his daughter. Although there is no record of a tryst between Anne and Charles Brandon, there is, perhaps, some evidence that she was pursued by Henry VIII. In 1510, while Katherine of Aragon was pregnant, either Henry or William Compton, or perhaps both men were pursuing Anne Hastings, who served Katherine as a lady in waiting. When this affair was revealed, Anne's husband packed her off to a nunnery (apparently not permanently), and this led to a rather serious falling-out between the royal couple. Katherine was extremely angry at Henry's infidelity, although Henry saw nothing wrong with the affair. The Duke of Buckingham apparently thought that William Compton was the man in question, rather than Henry, which provides evidence that Compton may have been covering for the king. <br />
<br />
William Compton, however, did have a long-term affair with Anne. In 1520, Compton was prosecuted by an ecclesiastical court for living openly in sin with a married woman (Anne Hastings). Upon his death, William bequeathed his wealth to Anne. Regardless, it has been asserted that Anne enjoyed a fairly good relationship with George Hastings, her husband. Her eight children were at least recognized by Hastings as his own. She did not die of the sweating sickness--she died long afterward in 1544.<br />
<br />
<strong>Did William Compton die of the sweating sickness?</strong><br />
In the series, William Compton is found one morning in his bed clearly extremely ill. Within hours, he dies, regardless of the efforts made by the physician to save him. Tallis, who had been abroad in France, returns to find Compton's gravesite and smashes his lute on the marker.<br />
<br />
Yes, William Compton did die of the sweating sickness, as did several of Henry's close friends at court, in 1528. According to the state papers, he had been allowed to sleep at a pivotal time during the infection, and this was supposed to have killed him. His will, dated 1523, left his wealth to Anne Hastings as he had no children and no wife, and some of his personal affects were sent to Henry VIII, probably as a token of friendship.<br />
<br />
<strong>Verdict:</strong><br />
Although William Compton's story, as portrayed in <em>The Tudors</em>, is a good one, it incorporates some truth and a lot of fiction. I am unaware of any biographies of Compton, Tallis, or Anne Hastings, but Compton is regularly mentioned in any, and all, biographies of Henry VIII and descriptions of court life during Henry's reign. Tallis is known more generally for his music, but he was seemingly a shadowy figure in his own time, so it is unusual to see him mentioned anywhere. Anne's presumed affair with Henry is often mentioned in the same sources in which Compton appears, and, in addition, in biographies of Katherine of Aragon.<br />
pilgrimchickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13808106043964544413noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3012721751896752923.post-43225740776271601272013-08-06T13:50:00.000-04:002013-08-06T13:50:23.764-04:00The Sisters of Henry VIII<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJH3P89MsbiGg9E9BKl5rHgepDha2pM3hxNsWihsXWlTJg5pQ0u-KvwDoVyW0CD-RJccYDaGTlzWHn0Jt-C6WBhhFaxDCaRxM-98JJPtxghMstmG7DTi5mlWou2j9qCnisU9clQwZnUA/s1600/SistersofHenry.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJH3P89MsbiGg9E9BKl5rHgepDha2pM3hxNsWihsXWlTJg5pQ0u-KvwDoVyW0CD-RJccYDaGTlzWHn0Jt-C6WBhhFaxDCaRxM-98JJPtxghMstmG7DTi5mlWou2j9qCnisU9clQwZnUA/s1600/SistersofHenry.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<strong>Author: </strong>Maria Perry<br />
<strong>Publication Date: </strong>1998<br />
<strong>Number of Pages: </strong>224<br />
<strong>Cost: </strong>This book doesn't seem to have been very popular, but I picked this up at a used bookstore in hardcover form for $5.00. I suspect you can find used copies if you look online. There isn't a Kindle edition available.<br />
<strong>Where did I hear about it: </strong>I more or less just found this book. I hadn't heard anything about it before I purchased it, and I haven't seen it referenced since.<br />
<br />
<strong>The Backstory</strong><br />
<strong></strong><br />
Increasingly over the last decade, Henry VIII's two sisters (the two who lived to adulthood) have garnered an increasing amount of attention. In the television series, <em>The Tudors</em>, Margaret Tudor was played by Gabrielle Anwar. The details of her story are some of the most memorable in the series. <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinjjXE3r5tl_8jRGfJrIqj9TPtd_7tqWIoEjoa3_DOxTXwIqvDih6fiy18htiIPvivjvPRd2qk8fHs7LazgdLrTEzt-Fvy9iycX0sSR5Kl28P1ctW9no8rDhJ0EtyIj_BV_G3PPF8JRg/s1600/MargaretTudorseries.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinjjXE3r5tl_8jRGfJrIqj9TPtd_7tqWIoEjoa3_DOxTXwIqvDih6fiy18htiIPvivjvPRd2qk8fHs7LazgdLrTEzt-Fvy9iycX0sSR5Kl28P1ctW9no8rDhJ0EtyIj_BV_G3PPF8JRg/s1600/MargaretTudorseries.jpg" height="200" width="183" /></a></div>
Margaret was betrothed, against her will, to the aging king of Portugal. Henry appointed Charles Brandon, who he creates Duke of Suffolk, to escort her to her new home. On the way, Margaret becomes enamored of Charles and they begin an (extremely forbidden) affair. Regardless, Margaret is married to the Portuguese king, but, when she realizes her English entourage is to return home, she smothers her husband. On the way back, she insists that Charles marry her, which he does, incurring Henry's wrath. Their marriage is portrayed as unfortunate--Charles engages in a number of affairs and leaves Margaret essentially alone in Suffolk where she develops consumption and unceremoniously dies on the floor in front of a set of servants.<br />
<br />
Is any of this true? Well, maybe some of it.<br />
<br />
In reality, Henry VIII had two sisters: Margaret Tudor (1489-1541) and Mary Tudor (1496-1533). The details portrayed in <em>The Tudors </em>are primarily from Mary's life, although Mary married the aging King of France, not the King of Portugal, and fully intended to remain in France as Queen for as long as he lived (from October 9, 1514 to January 1, 1515). <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYcDNxJjyv_W2QI3CbIV5OJrbZnYVSjkTPkJkapEGfRXEoFFHGhG4CwhXYqfXttYE7poxmLZoAao-lTczbMWISNR7i37sctHWha8qwGFOHDny1Cau5E4gguy-aZD-B8Xq4hgkl_xg6WQ/s1600/MargaretTudor.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYcDNxJjyv_W2QI3CbIV5OJrbZnYVSjkTPkJkapEGfRXEoFFHGhG4CwhXYqfXttYE7poxmLZoAao-lTczbMWISNR7i37sctHWha8qwGFOHDny1Cau5E4gguy-aZD-B8Xq4hgkl_xg6WQ/s1600/MargaretTudor.jpg" /></a></div>
Margaret Tudor, the elder sister, was married to James IV of Scotland in 1503 in an attempt at establishing peace between the two kingdoms. Although he was infamous for his extramarital affairs, he seems to have truly cared for Margaret, and they had six children together in their ten years of marriage. Unfortunately, only one of them survived to adulthood--the future James V. His father, James IV, died in battle in 1513 leaving Margaret as regent, but infighting between the heads of various Scottish nobility made this task particularly difficult. Scottish politics were dominated by competition between clans, and, to combat this (and probably because she was attracted to him), she married Archibald Douglas, 6th Earl Angus the following year. This only exacerbated divisions between factions, and the earl further offended Margaret by living openly with his mistress on one of Margaret's properties. Her enemies invited James Stuart, the Duke of Albany, back from France to claim the regency, which he did in 1515. Margaret escaped into England and spent a year living in Henry VIII's court. She later returned to Scotland, even working with Albany for a time, but Albany was completely removed from power by Margaret and her allies in 1524. In the meantime, James V was almost fully controlled by his step-father, much to his dismay. In 1527, Margaret was granted a divorce from Angus. In 1528, she married her lover, Henry Stewart, but this marriage also proved disastrous. However, James V came into his own throughout this process, and Margaret remained on the political stage until her death, probably from a stroke, in 1541.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEga0T8tGOuskAqb3_nZgi_dXG_0ySoTMPZea69K7y8wuA5yo82dLyigCqT4GHhU9yqQ_Y4bzmXZyxLy5LLrB4JKncdFyO4yeHb4cxhGjm1hUH_hDgzSf0hrJU-H2h0CV8DBSS_1NjG9pw/s1600/MaryTudor.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEga0T8tGOuskAqb3_nZgi_dXG_0ySoTMPZea69K7y8wuA5yo82dLyigCqT4GHhU9yqQ_Y4bzmXZyxLy5LLrB4JKncdFyO4yeHb4cxhGjm1hUH_hDgzSf0hrJU-H2h0CV8DBSS_1NjG9pw/s1600/MaryTudor.jpg" height="320" width="241" /></a></div>
Mary Tudor was destined for an equally brilliant future at the start. Of his siblings, Henry VIII was closest to Mary, although his attempt to divorce Katherine of Aragon forced a wedge between them. At first, her intended husband was the future Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, but, when an alliance with France proved more desirable, Henry VIII arranged a marriage between Mary and aging King Louis XII. It was at the prospect of this match that Mary supposedly exacted from her brother the fateful promise that she should be allowed to marry whom she pleased in the event of Louis's death. She was well-received, and well-liked in France, although her tenure as Queen only lasted from her marriage on October 9, 1514 to Louis's death, possibly from over-exertion in the marriage bed, on January 1, 1515. Then, she entered into a period of 40 days of mourning in seclusion in France. Henry VIII sent Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk to France to bring his sister home. Quite unexpectedly, perhaps to everyone other than Mary and Charles, Mary demanded that Charles marry her right away--which he did. It dawned on Charles rather quickly that Henry would be livid, so he wrote to Cardinal Wolsey to ask him to intervene on their behalf. As a result, Henry welcomed Charles and Mary, exacting a rather heavy fine on them for their marriage without his consent. They had four children, but only two girls survived long into adulthood. Frances Brandon, the elder, married Henry Grey and would become the mother of Jane Grey, the "nine days queen" who was executed at 17. Mary disliked Anne Boleyn and often pled ill-health to absent herself from events at court. Mary died in 1533, and her husband remarried within two months.<br />
<br />
<strong>What about the book?</strong><br />
<strong></strong><br />
I'm not sure I read this book. I think I "waded through it."<br />
<br />
Honestly, there is a really good reason why this book isn't particularly widely known--it isn't very good. The book is primarily comprised of well-known stories about these women interspersed between lengthy descriptions of events in Henry VIII's life. The reader doesn't get a good sense of either Margaret or Mary, although it can be argued that Margaret is a bit better covered and described. The author doesn't seem to know the difference between research worth including in a book like this and research that doesn't add anything to the theme of the book.<br />
<br />
On the bright side, Margaret's life is fairly well described, even if many details are left unrecorded. Her life in Scotland, her problems with her second and third marriages, Scottish politics, and Margaret's general movements while Queen of Scotland are described as is her correspondence with Henry VIII. The only part of Mary's life that is covered as well is her marriage to Louis XII and her subsequent marriage to Charles Brandon. Margaret's character does come out in the narrative, but Mary's character is not very well described, regardless of the abundance of information about her available. Margaret's marriages and their results are also covered fairly well, but Mary's marriage to Brandon is almost completely absent from the work. <br />
<br />
There are a lot of negatives to this book. First, the author has a very difficult time sticking to the topic at hand. Probably as much as 40% of the book is really about Henry VIII and the political events of the day without any attempt to fix Margaret or Mary into these events. I found myself skipping through parts that didn't seem to have any relevance to the topic. I think that, for a careful researcher, there is plenty of information out there on both Margaret and Mary, and it wouldn't be a stretch to write a 200 page book just about them and nothing else. In addition, Perry includes details that quickly grow tiresome to the reader--for example, she meticulously covers what anyone, at any time, was wearing at any state event. If you digitized this text and entered "cloth of gold" into a text search, it would come up more times than any other phrase. There may be a few people out there who are really interested in what everyone was wearing, but, most readers are more interested in who the subjects are rather than what was on them. And, there are many biographies of Henry VIII--there was no need to include so much information about him unless the subjects of the book were directly related to the events in question. <br />
<br />
The epilogue is unforgivably short. The author expected to sum up Margaret's and Mary's story in a mere two pages. What happened to their families is particularly significant, but the mention is brief, if it isn't completely absent. Margaret's descendants eventually assumed the English throne after Henry VIII's daughter, Elizabeth, died childless in 1603. Mary's granddaughter, Jane Grey, was thrust into the national spotlight after Edward VI's death when someone--or someones--attempted to disinherit Mary, Henry VIII's Catholic eldest daughter. Jane was a very temporary Queen of England, if she could actually be called that, and was executed. If anything, the epilogue discussing the significance of these women and their families should have been somewhat extensive.<br />
<br />
<strong>Rating: </strong>A 4 for the few parts of the book that actually covered the topic.<br />
<strong>Buy it or Borrow it: </strong>Don't do either. I'm not aware of a biography of Margaret Tudor, but there is a new biography about Mary Tudor entitled: <em>The Tudor Rose: Princess Mary, Henry VIII's Sister </em>by Jennifer Draskau due out on September 1 that may be worthwhile.<br />
pilgrimchickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13808106043964544413noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3012721751896752923.post-23451196099039558492013-07-31T23:42:00.000-04:002013-07-31T23:57:58.159-04:00Captive Queen<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCsq19vwEZdtoiUdg7jq2BmFl82Ik-b1-szY_kVc6tCkaQaMlV2spmRJ-cN4JAUsvu7_Tyti4ab4C1VZdWOWf67VBhX8DkKmoqshZvNZ9jVjLIt6abcO2rgoBEUYJxATvbhyphenhyphenJmAaegYg/s1600/CaptiveQueen.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCsq19vwEZdtoiUdg7jq2BmFl82Ik-b1-szY_kVc6tCkaQaMlV2spmRJ-cN4JAUsvu7_Tyti4ab4C1VZdWOWf67VBhX8DkKmoqshZvNZ9jVjLIt6abcO2rgoBEUYJxATvbhyphenhyphenJmAaegYg/s1600/CaptiveQueen.jpg" height="320" width="210" /></a></div>
<br />
<strong>Author: </strong>Alison Weir<br />
<strong>Publication Date: </strong>2010<br />
<strong>Number of Pages: </strong>473<br />
<strong>Cost: </strong>The list price is around $15.00, but I'm sure you can pick up a copy for less than that.<br />
<strong>Where Did I Hear About It: </strong>I generally enjoy Alison Weir's work, although I acknowledge some historical issues here and there. I try to keep an eye out for new books.<br />
<br />
<strong>The Backstory</strong><br />
<strong></strong><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4sP2wxeydSdwyc5ZoY0H-gpw0isNxc7Usny5jQh2kRKtn0zgxXSLYzosAmOSGA4-IpSGtS-RNFcpciQJ8SFYrcEypqyE4CIWfe3QgEovwiVMg9ny6VLnLXBNBZGg9c-IZAqgQAxkk8w/s1600/EleanorTomb.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4sP2wxeydSdwyc5ZoY0H-gpw0isNxc7Usny5jQh2kRKtn0zgxXSLYzosAmOSGA4-IpSGtS-RNFcpciQJ8SFYrcEypqyE4CIWfe3QgEovwiVMg9ny6VLnLXBNBZGg9c-IZAqgQAxkk8w/s1600/EleanorTomb.jpg" height="180" width="320" /></a></div>
Eleanor of Aquitaine is second only to Anne Boleyn when it comes to history's most notorious English queens. Unlike Anne, who was born into the more modest English gentry, Eleanor was destined for something significant early on. Her father, William X, Duke of Aquitaine, died seven years after his only son, William, leaving Eleanor his heir. Right away, men of rank and substance--and many fortune hunters who were not--were eager to capture her hand in marriage. It was, however, Louis VII, King of France, who was the ultimate victor, becoming Eleanor's first husband in 1137. The marriage was not a happy one. It seems Eleanor and Louis were two very different people--Louis was primarily guided by the formidable Abbot Suger, who encouraged him to avoid his wife's company, particularly in bed. It was agreed that Eleanor and Louis should seek an annulment, which they did in 1152. The official reason was their all-too-close blood ties, but many suspected that the two of them would never see eye-to-eye, and their marriage had only produced two daughters, both barred from inheriting the French throne due to their gender.<br />
<br />
Eleanor's second, and more successful marriage, to the future Henry II of England, was made about two months after her annulment. Although the age difference was significant--Eleanor was 11 years his senior--the marriage produced 8 living children, and perhaps more who died in infancy. Regardless, they seemed to have quarreled quite a bit. Eleanor was frequently left on her own while Henry quelled various rebellions across what would be called his "Angevin Empire." In 1167, Eleanor traveled south with Henry, staying in Poitiers and effectively ruling Aquitaine on her own (or on Henry's behalf). Her eldest living son, Henry, who had been crowned king by Henry II to acknowledge him as his successor, revolted against his father in 1173, bringing his younger brothers, Geoffrey and Richard, into the fray. Eleanor was assumed to have encouraged her sons, and perhaps the Aquitainian nobility, to revolt, and, as a result, she was captured and held in either Winchester or Sarum starting in 1174. In 1183, however, she was granted a greater degree of freedom, occasionally accompanying her husband and participating in state affairs, but she was generally accompanied by a guardian of some kind. She was officially freed by her son, Richard, upon his succession after his father's death in 1189. Eleanor acted as Richard's regent while Richard was off on the Third Crusade, and, her son, John, Richard's successor, sent her to Castile to choose the future wife of the King of France's son, Louis. Eleanor returned to Fontevraud Abbey in 1201, dying there in 1204.<br />
<br />
There were, of course, many stories, legends, and rumors of note associated with Eleanor. She was described as a great beauty in her own time. There were rumors that she had several out-of-wedlock trysts, particularly when she was married to Louis. Two notable examples were: Geoffrey Plantagenet, father of Henry II, and Raymond of Poitiers, her uncle and Prince of Antioch while accompanying Louis on Crusade. There were also rumors that Eleanor had somehow killed Henry II's beloved mistress, Rosamond de Clifford. Historians generally accept that Eleanor must have been remarkably beautiful, but they debate many other details associated with her life.<br />
<br />
<strong>What about the book?</strong><br />
<strong></strong><br />
Although I started out as an avid reader of Alison Weir's historical works, I truly believe she is at her best as an author of historical fiction. She knows the topics of her novels very well, having often researched them for published historical materials, and she has a gift for writing lively prose. She is clearly interested in what the historical sources can tell her about the characters of the people she writes about, and those characters are well-developed in her work.<br />
<br />
I have to admit that it took me much longer than it usually does to get down to reading this book in earnest. I picked it up months ago, got about 20 pages into it, but I was generally turned off by her approach to Eleanor. I thought I would try again, and I am very glad I did. <br />
<br />
This book is generally very enjoyable. If you know the basic outline of the details of Eleanor's life, you'll find it particularly interesting to see how Weir treats them. She has a very clear idea about the characters of her primary subjects--Eleanor and Henry. She also does a good job with Henry's son, Henry, who died young and never succeeded his father. She writes the novel in such a way as to keep the reader moving through it, and the pieces fit together well.<br />
<br />
There are a few drawbacks--first, she covers a very long period of time, and not all of it is treated equally well. I would argue that the earlier parts of Eleanor's life were covered better than the later ones, as if Weir either ran out of steam going into Eleanor's later life or she was, herself, more interested in Eleanor's earlier life. I felt that the details got thinner as the novel wore on, which is possibly a response to how lengthy it ultimately became. The cast of characters was also a bit too extensive, and many were left without a postscript save Eleanor's children. The novel's primary action ends in 1189 upon Richard's accession as king, but this leaves out some of the more interesting events in her later life. Although convenient to frame the novel around Eleanor's marriage to Henry II, the reader could have regained something of Eleanor as autonomous elder stateswoman if her post-Henry years were somehow included. In fact, there is a short epilogue, taking place in 1204 upon her death, during which she reflects upon her life. All of her reflections were about events through 1189, and one would think that the ensuing 15 years would have had some kind of impact on her to warrant a mention at that stage. To think she would be pining for Henry at the end, a decade and a half after his death, seems a little ridiculous.<br />
<br />
Overall, however, I really enjoyed this novel quite a bit. There is a lot of action and some great dialogue and exchanges between characters. I would make the argument that Weir's treatment of Henry's relationship with Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, is one of the novel's highlights. Henry, Eleanor, and Thomas are all developed as complex characters, and Henry's relationship with Thomas is equally complex. <br />
<br />
If you're interesting in reading more about Eleanor, Alison Weir wrote a biography in 1999 entitled <em>Eleanor of Aquitaine</em>, and, more recently, Ralph V. Turner wrote a biography by the same name (published 2009).<br />
<br />
<strong>Rating: </strong>7. It's well worth a read.<br />
<strong>Buy it or Borrow it: </strong>Borrow it--after I read the book, I truly felt that I wouldn't read it again even thought I enjoyed it. Overall, it is great, but I can't identify any passages in the book that I will think on and ultimately wish to revisit.<br />
<br />pilgrimchickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13808106043964544413noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3012721751896752923.post-58259480281810220302013-02-10T21:34:00.000-05:002013-07-31T23:54:35.766-04:00My kingdom for a...King Richard III?Has King Richard III of England finally been discovered?<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEic7A1xlAQ0yKzaoaBszcZT32rF3reI76_wgUIs-8BzY_RxIGBjVz4dJ3Zvxfj4jqSmPFA5xYC4OqWmHbHZIpKEcrAas7YwbS0w6AR1jlqYNwf9N9cwQpEvUnj2V6D1EmBAdwuVDUcVlA/s1600/Richard+III+Skeleton.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEic7A1xlAQ0yKzaoaBszcZT32rF3reI76_wgUIs-8BzY_RxIGBjVz4dJ3Zvxfj4jqSmPFA5xYC4OqWmHbHZIpKEcrAas7YwbS0w6AR1jlqYNwf9N9cwQpEvUnj2V6D1EmBAdwuVDUcVlA/s1600/Richard+III+Skeleton.jpg" height="240" width="320" /></a>Recently, the University of Leicester made the biggest discovery in British archaeology in decades. Under a parking lot in Leicester where a Greyfriars friary once stood in the 15th century, a team of archaeologists discovered exactly what they were looking for (for once). What had become of Richard III after his death during the Battle of Bosworth in 1485 had been a mystery up to that point. There was a tradition that he had been buried in the friary, but, further tradition claimed that he had later been exhumed and his remains thrown in a nearby river. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Acertaining that this is, indeed, Richard, was another matter. Using mitochondrial DNA, carried through the mother's line, it was possible to match DNA extracted from the skeleton to descendants of Richard III's sister, Anne of York. As neither relative has any children of their own, within another generation, it might have been impossible to reach a definitive conclusion about the identity of the skeleton. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
You can read about the discovery, and the science behind it, <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/03/world/europe/richard-iii-search-announcement" target="_blank">here</a>.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Whether you're a history scholar or you despise history with a passion, you probably have heard about Richard III. Richard III: a deformed, evil, power-hungry monarch who mercilessly murdered his nephews, who killed his wife to marry his niece, and who was justly cut down in battle by victorious Henry VII. So, where does this come from?</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Probably the most influential person to explore Richard III's personality, or the personality attributed to him, was Shakespeare. The opening monologue introduces the evil, calculating Richard III, and no one personified that better than Laurence Olivier. Here is Olivier delivering an edited version of Richard III's soliloquy:</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/q0PFH5K59gg?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Was King Richard III really this guy?</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
There are certainly reasons to be somewhat suspicious of this interpretation of Richard. In fact, King Richard III is the only king in English history to have a rehabilitation society dedicated to improving his reputation. Many authors have examined the sources and come to very different conclusions about Richard. For example, Richard III was uncompromisingly loyal to his older brother, King Edward IV, before and throughout his reign as king of England. The Parliament that sat during his very short reign introduced a number of very progressive reforms, and he improved conditions markedly for often-neglected northern England. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Where did Shakespeare get his Richard III? The primary source that informed this play was a history composed by Thomas More. His <em>The History of Richard III </em>was probably composed in the mid-1510s during the reign of King Henry VIII. There is no question that this is a story composed by and for the victorious Tudors. Richard III was evil and deserved to be deposed. Henry VII, Henry VIII's father, was a liberator who won a god-sanctioned victory at the Battle of Bosworth. Many important cultural norms appear in the narrative--Richard III's physical deformities were an outwardly visible manifestation of his evil nature. He coveted the crown so much, he killed innocent children who loved and trusted him. All of this was meant to legitimize the Tudor reign at a time when Henry VIII was still threatened by others who had stronger claims to the English throne. Richard III is considered to be the "last Plantagenet king," but he wasn't the last living member of this long-reigning family. There were many Plantagenets still living in England under the uneasy eye of the Tudor kings and queens to follow. Henry VII spent most of his reign legitimizing his position, and Henry VIII inherited some of his insecurities. The assurance that Richard III deserved to lose the English crown on behalf of the entire Plantagenet clan was perhaps one of the few comforting thoughts either monarch had to rest upon. And, it comes as no surprise that faithful royal servant, Thomas More, who rose to prominence during the Tudor dynasty (and, later, fell) was the one who provided it.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Was Richard III really deformed? The skeleton seems to confirm a case of scoliosis, demonstrated in the prominent curvature of the mid-spine. But, a whithered arm is completely absent. In fact, it seems that regardless of his back problems, he may have been a fairly competent fighter.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Did Richard III really kill his wife? Probably not. There are many indications that they had a fairly happy marriage. She died in 1485 only months before Richard, but it is thought by scholars today that she suffered from tuberculosis. There is no evidence that Richard poisoned her to be able to marry his niece, Elizabeth of York, who later became Henry VII's wife. The logic behind this had to do with the fact that she was the daughter of King Edward IV and elder sister to the two "murdered" princes. A marriage to her could legitimize a claim to the throne. Apparently, Henry VII certainly thought so, but there isn't much evidence Richard thought this way.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Did Richard III kill his nephews, Edward and Richard, sons of King Edward IV? This is the big question, and one for which there are equally good arguments on either side. I'd recommend reading more yourself on this one if you would like to explore the possibilities.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Whatever the verdict on Richard III's life and personality, the discovery of a long-lost king of England is an absolutely remarkable find. </div>
pilgrimchickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13808106043964544413noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3012721751896752923.post-470813743440710102013-01-13T12:40:00.002-05:002013-07-31T23:55:52.790-04:00Kate's Portrait: A Short History of Royal Imagery<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh19AtCP1bS3kKrw3xwO9-LxRocA8HWeIWum7q2LyYgAYx4TSVqN1Mo6vzDmAdayNy4oeoV0vGKeNQ2I546rczynXh-t-BrRc1hHBp_UYYGf1Xbkz8D622oTC0211atU3IvL2jcf3B51w/s1600/Portrait.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh19AtCP1bS3kKrw3xwO9-LxRocA8HWeIWum7q2LyYgAYx4TSVqN1Mo6vzDmAdayNy4oeoV0vGKeNQ2I546rczynXh-t-BrRc1hHBp_UYYGf1Xbkz8D622oTC0211atU3IvL2jcf3B51w/s200/Portrait.jpg" height="165" width="200" /></a></div>
So, yesterday, we learned about <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/11/world/europe/duchess-of-cambridge-first-portrait/index.html?hpt=hp_c2http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/11/world/europe/duchess-of-cambridge-first-portrait/index.html?hpt=hp_c2">this picture</a>.<br />
<br />
Far from a critic of or a student of art history, I will refrain from supplying yet another interpretation of this portrait. I'm not quite sure that this result was what the artist, however talented, was aiming for, to say the least.<br />
<br />
The British monarchy has had a long history of official (and unofficial) portraiture. Nothing has changed the nature of portraiture more than the increasingly widespread use of photography. Although portraits of monarchs and their families continue to be painted to this day, photographs have overtaken paintings in crafting images of the British monarchy. Arguably, because of photography, portrait painters are forced to create far more candid, true-to-life images than their image-conscious predecessors. Instead of portraying the monarch as he/she wished to be, portrait painters now attempt to create images that are as close as possible to how their subjects actually appear and behave.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJu4rfheL_VfRlRak5VjkvTi8dHgNJzDjZEWWqJyK_E8f4Uwxj8Cm1kVIf0ttx91oxxISRNZMPUamzzzBRVO_vXL7aQ34S6AfAH5YQPflS1q8Wgtx2IKeu4galZn6yg-T7tfGI_W0DpQ/s1600/Victoria+Photo.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJu4rfheL_VfRlRak5VjkvTi8dHgNJzDjZEWWqJyK_E8f4Uwxj8Cm1kVIf0ttx91oxxISRNZMPUamzzzBRVO_vXL7aQ34S6AfAH5YQPflS1q8Wgtx2IKeu4galZn6yg-T7tfGI_W0DpQ/s200/Victoria+Photo.png" height="200" width="153" /></a></div>
The first sitting British monarch to be photographed was Queen Victoria. Photographs can be difficult to track down, so we actually aren't sure whether we have the first photograph of Victoria. This photograph, taken around 1844, is thought to be the first of Victoria. She is shown here holding her eldest daughter, also a Victoria. The photographer is unknown (as far as I am aware--please share if you know who took the picture). Although Victoria sat for both painted portraits and photographs throughout her long reign, she mastered crafting an image through both media.<br />
<br />
<br />
Here is an image (more famous) of her family in 1857:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0iC6j1OP0iS28gXeHbSu8pQgS8HJl9yaCvJxr4YaglRF2zN1OdgoYmXZgkdSGedvBmOt2vNyOmFzatIsxp1tfe20vRWqxIQUybSjGvmmnaSY3Ov5PrKhY3CHBYIXFhSkAdaivO6cuvQ/s1600/Victoria+Family.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0iC6j1OP0iS28gXeHbSu8pQgS8HJl9yaCvJxr4YaglRF2zN1OdgoYmXZgkdSGedvBmOt2vNyOmFzatIsxp1tfe20vRWqxIQUybSjGvmmnaSY3Ov5PrKhY3CHBYIXFhSkAdaivO6cuvQ/s320/Victoria+Family.JPG" height="144" width="320" /> </a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
After years of reports of scandalous indulgences perpetrated by the previous generation of her family, Victoria and Albert came to represent stability, devotion to family, a new morality, and what would later become a Victorian perspective of the roles of men and women in home and society (which, sadly, continues to influence how historians today interpret pre-Victorian ages). Images like the one above contributed massively to that campaign.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWmUFxVRH2YtZAdoChOS8jePRKwYvQf3YSa938mAvTqxIVT7f6EgEHZQk1xl4pp3fVq9pEQzNDnUILLSpFZWe23Qs2_R6PAx-iZ98KNJBL1nM6ifjU64J7RKfXjtcsTx7zisLz6EkzRg/s1600/Henry.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWmUFxVRH2YtZAdoChOS8jePRKwYvQf3YSa938mAvTqxIVT7f6EgEHZQk1xl4pp3fVq9pEQzNDnUILLSpFZWe23Qs2_R6PAx-iZ98KNJBL1nM6ifjU64J7RKfXjtcsTx7zisLz6EkzRg/s320/Henry.jpg" height="320" width="184" /></a>Going back further, arguably the Tudor family deserves the most credit for creating an image of monarchy portrayed through portraiture. The portrait to the right is of--yes, you guessed it--King Henry VIII. Although many historians have attempted to interpret Henry's personality, it is clear that he was a rather vain man who was somewhat obsessed with his physical appearance and how others perceived his vigor and virility. This portrait was painted by Hans Holbein the Younger around 1537. Henry had been through two wives already, was married to his third, and there were three more to come before his death a decade later. Because he hadn't produced many living children--not to mention his lack of a male heir--there had been a whisper or two about just how "manly" this king really was. The portrait gains additional significance depending upon when in 1537 it was actually painted. Jane Seymour was pregnant throughout most of 1537, and, unlike her predecessor Anne Boleyn, managed to carry the child to term successfully. In October, she gave birth to the only male child who would outlive Henry, the future Edward VI. Jane's pregnancy, and perhaps even the birth of his son if this were painted that late in the year, could have been the inspiration for such a confident, masculine, powerful portrayal of Henry VIII.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Who was the first English monarch to have his/her likeness captured? That is a difficult question to answer. Images of monarchs appear in a number of manuscripts throughout the Medieval period, but it is generally agreed that these were not taken from life. It is believed by scholars that some Medieval sculpture, primarily in churches and cathedrals, does portray important royal figures. However, the first royal portrait taken from life is believed to be of King Richard II.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjA-SLvphxeY9qX_sRhJzkapPV22jfcXjS7JbX8PAzaEmjf_L956ibQKHMjpqRDsBYHtj927kWPDVCkcxJ4k3pwcbn_rgI7ipmLgRdRMLQNNjJ7a5c90FxJw-EYKbDqeHQqtwY1ryL78w/s1600/Richard.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjA-SLvphxeY9qX_sRhJzkapPV22jfcXjS7JbX8PAzaEmjf_L956ibQKHMjpqRDsBYHtj927kWPDVCkcxJ4k3pwcbn_rgI7ipmLgRdRMLQNNjJ7a5c90FxJw-EYKbDqeHQqtwY1ryL78w/s320/Richard.jpg" height="320" width="234" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
There are several images of Richard II that were painted during his lifetime. One of the most famous appears on the Wilton Diptych, which is in the National Gallery in London. This devotional set of panels was painted in the tradition of altars, both stationary and portable, that were popular in the 14th and 15th centuries in Europe. It portrays Richard II kneeling before Mary, holding an infant Jesus, who is offering Richard a blessing. The portrait above, showing Richard II seated with crown, scepter, and orb, was painted between 5 and 10 years earlier around 1390. The timing of this portrait is therefore significant in the context of the many problems that occurred in Richard's reign. In the late 1380s, Richard had been forced by Parliament to condemn several of his most important court allies. By 1390, Richard was eager to reassert his royal prerogative. Richard took control of the British government formally in 1389, having come of age to do so. Although the chroniclers seem to classify Richard as a less-than-ideal king, he remained in control through the 1390s, and he even attempted to redress the wrongs perpetrated against him in the 1380s. Richard's story did not end happily. Richard was overthrown by the future Henry IV and died in captivity, perhaps by starvation, by 1400.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
How will Kate's famous portrait hold up in the succession of royal images? It's difficult to say at this stage, but there's no doubt that it is a part of a long history that will continue for generations to come. </div>
<br />
<br />pilgrimchickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13808106043964544413noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3012721751896752923.post-79168741898804930362012-07-21T18:30:00.000-04:002013-07-31T23:57:03.593-04:00The Six Wives of Henry VIII (Starkey)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimhxgZck3ATBbnuDbYWx6c3i_xHUcJZeYILIPTLTxKfs-YvdmA8Oc06-JYZG7dS8JJTTQOVu31T1_o4UnIYXEr8Vnuik4TeIgpBivPou1cRvTUWMYsezppncFEFJ5uUXs9IuGPgckYrw/s1600/Starkey.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimhxgZck3ATBbnuDbYWx6c3i_xHUcJZeYILIPTLTxKfs-YvdmA8Oc06-JYZG7dS8JJTTQOVu31T1_o4UnIYXEr8Vnuik4TeIgpBivPou1cRvTUWMYsezppncFEFJ5uUXs9IuGPgckYrw/s320/Starkey.jpg" height="320" width="213" /></a></div>
<b>Author:</b> David Starkey<br />
<b>Publication Date:</b> 2004
<b> </b><br />
<b>Number of Pages:</b> 880<br />
<b>Cost:</b> You can literally find this book for almost any cost these days--used copies go from about $2.00 up to around $10.00, and there is a Kindle edition available.
<b> </b><br />
<b>Where Did I Hear About It:</b> Well, it's almost impossible NOT to have heard about this book somewhere if you're a fan of Tudor history. I purchased this book years ago, and I used it as a reference for a long time before actually reading it cover to cover.
<b> </b><br />
<br />
<b>The Backstory</b><br />
<br />
I think we've all heard it: Divorced, Beheaded, Died, Divorced, Beheaded, Survived. Henry VIII is England's much-married monarch, and the story of his relationship with each one of his wives is enough to make a book of its own (and, in some cases, it already has). However, there's something about treating Henry's wives all together that makes the story particularly interesting to the reader. This approach allows the author to draw conclusions about the similarities and differences from wife to wife and relationship to relationship that only a book a of this kind can do.<br />
<br />
In case anyone is unclear, Henry's six wives were: Katherine of Aragon, Anne Boleyn, Jane Seymour, Anne of Cleves, Katherine Howard, and Katherine Parr. His marriage to Katherine of Aragon was the longest of all and perhaps the most dynastically significant given her impressive Spanish royal descent. Anne Boleyn, the woman who supposedly "stole Henry's heart" from Katherine, produced the famous Elizabeth I but quickly lost Henry's love and ended her days prematurely on the scaffold. Jane, dutiful, quiet, and brief, was the mother of Henry's only living son, Edward (and her significance in history pretty much ends there). Anne of Cleves was the product of a second foreign marriage (Katherine of Aragon being the first), but Henry's lack of attraction to her quickly ended the marriage on favorable terms for Anne, who remained in England. Katherine Howard was the much-younger woman who invigorated an ageing Henry, but whose indiscretions landed her the same fate as her unfortunate cousin, Anne Boleyn. Katherine Parr was perhaps more a companion than the others, save perhaps Katherine of Aragon, whose attachment to religious reform nearly ended her life. It's debatable how successful each of these relationships truly were. Eventually, something went wrong somewhere along the line, and, to Henry, if he had to end a marriage that fell into that category, he was always the victim.
Some of this story makes for a more interesting read, naturally, than other parts. Katherine of Aragon had a pretty conventional dynastic marriage to Henry for some time, and, under most circumstances, the story would have began and ended there. Anne Boleyn's part is probably the most exciting and interesting. Although Katherine Howard offers a splash of color a bit later down the line, the rest of Henry's marital history is a bit duller than might be expected. However, as a whole story, it is a fascinating, and unusual, one.
<b> </b><br />
<br />
<b>What About The Book?</b><br />
<br />
David Starkey is a great historian. There is no question that he consulted a long list of applicable sources to write this book. Whenever he offers analysis of a detail that has been long accepted or interpreted by other historians in a different light, I would definitely trust Starkey's assessment on that point. However, I am not sure this is the book that Starkey truly wanted to write.<br />
<br />
How much Starkey actually focuses on the "six wives" varies from wife to wife depending upon his interests in the characters and how much new analysis he can offer on the topics. His section on Katherine of Aragon was a very enlightening read, for example, as is his treatment of Katherine Howard, using some of the original documents that are rarely included by other historians. However, I really think Starkey was more interested in some of the other figures of the day than Henry's wives--figures like Stephen Gardiner, Thomas Cranmer, Thomas Cromwell, and, above all, Thomas Wolsey, figure too prominently and often replace insight on the stated subject(s) of this book.
The most prominent example of this phenomenon is how Starkey treats his section on Anne Boleyn. He offers a very lengthy analysis of the divorce proceedings in which Thomas Wolsey has a starring role but Anne is only an afterthought. It may be that Starkey felt other historians had covered Anne's relationship with Henry in enough detail and had not gone over the divorce with as much description. There is no question that I would use his discussion of the divorce as a reference for the chronology involved. However, this is advertised as a book about Henry's "six wives." As a reader, I want to know more about Anne and Henry's relationship pre-marriage and how it fell apart later. I am not as interested in Cardinal Wolsey's fall from power as a result of that process. In fact, in order to learn more about Henry's relationship with Anne, I had to pull out author Alison Weir's book of the same name and read the two side by side. Weir almost entirely focuses on Anne and Henry's relationship, whereas I'm not sure Starkey was very interested in it. Starkey seems to fall into the same trap I see a lot of (primarily male) Tudor historians fall into--he loves the men of the age, but he knows he can't write a book about Thomas Wolsey and hope to sell it, so he inserts him rather annoyingly often into a book that is about the more popular topic--unfortunately for his readers.<br />
<br />
A big bright spot in this book is his treatment of Katherine Howard. His is the most detailed analysis of Katherine, where she came from, and what really happened to bring about her fall, that I have seen anywhere, even in Katherine's own (fairly poorly written) biography. For example, he uses an inventory of the many jewels Henry gave Katherine to ascertain that a well-known portrait claimed to be Katherine actually must be her. He also includes documents about Katherine's previous relationships with other men that were too vivid to be printed in Victorian histories on the topic.<br />
<br />
This is a massive book--or, it feels massive to the reader (Weir's book is of similar length, but I feel it is a faster read). And, it suffers from it's ups and downs, focusing rather too little on the overall subject at times. Starkey has a little bit of a showman-oriented writing style that can both excite interest and annoyance in the reader. However, you can't beat his bibliography, and I don't think you'll find a better analysis of anything he does focus on anywhere else.
<b> </b><br />
<br />
<b>Rating:</b> With such a long book, it is very hard to give this a rating. Instead, I'll rate the different sections by wife:
Katherine of Aragon: 8,
Anne Boleyn: 4,
Jane Seymour: 7,
Anne of Cleves: 7,
Katherine Howard: 9,
Katherine Parr: 7.5 (probably the most balanced section)
<b> </b><br />
<b>Buy It or Borrow It:</b> You can't beat the price on the many used copies available out there. If you're a Tudor historian and you want a really good reference for primary sources or to double-check information in either other books or in TV specials/movies, it is definitely worth having a copy of this around.pilgrimchickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13808106043964544413noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3012721751896752923.post-73615069687199055092012-04-20T20:51:00.003-04:002013-07-31T23:57:42.918-04:00Unicorn's Blood<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfagYoEtHw16Wrys5dJBf7kRR0I4Dm-4xDRTjUnFEWitugk27iDnb7j2Dl6OG3L8Tfj4V7JkEGsaicfbzGVnAXZjhRD3h-w2T4tYFFmay1hEtgHoDkRYUpOY3KozqcgBIbSfDdBh7m1w/s1600/UnicornBlood.jpg"><img alt="" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfagYoEtHw16Wrys5dJBf7kRR0I4Dm-4xDRTjUnFEWitugk27iDnb7j2Dl6OG3L8Tfj4V7JkEGsaicfbzGVnAXZjhRD3h-w2T4tYFFmay1hEtgHoDkRYUpOY3KozqcgBIbSfDdBh7m1w/s320/UnicornBlood.jpg" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5733650651370987954" style="cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 320px; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; width: 214px;" /></a><br />
<br />
<strong>Author:</strong> Patricia Finney<br />
<strong>Publication Date:</strong> 1998<br />
<strong>Cost:</strong> This is on offer on amazon.com for just over $7.00, and there is no Kindle edition available.<br />
<strong>Where Did I Hear About It:</strong> This is another Booksfree.com find.<br />
<br />
<strong>The Backstory</strong><br />
<br />
This novel takes place in 1587. Elizabeth has been queen for some time, and is now an older, somewhat cantankerous version of herself. Her Privy Council continues to try and convince her to order the execution of Mary, Queen of Scots. She is attended by several familiar faces and many fictional ones created for the primary action of the story.<br />
<br />
The main focus of the book is a diary kept by Elizabeth as a teenager, known as the Book of the Unicorn. From the beginning, it is clear that this diary contains information that could completely undo the Queen, compromising the loyalty of her subjects and delivering to her enemies exactly what they're looking for to destroy her. The mystery of the novel is exactly how the different individuals, who appear both separately and without reference to the diary at the start of the book, fit together.<br />
<br />
The primary characters are: Mary, a former nun dissillusioned by the dissolution of the monasteries and nunneries under Elizabeth's father; David Becket, a man who has completely lost his memory who may know something about the Book of the Unicorn; Thomasina, Elizabeth's court fool and trusted friend; Simon Ames, a Jewish man who was a former informant for Frances Walsingham; and Secretary Davidson, who is working for the Queen. All of them are somehow related to the Book of the Unicorn, and their relationship to this book and to each other is gradually revealed throughout the novel.<br />
<br />
The primary question is: Will Elizabeth find the Book of the Unicorn before her enemies do? And, if she doesn't, what will be her fate?<br />
<br />
<strong>What about the book?</strong><br />
<br />
This book, unlike many novels focusing on Elizabeth or on the Tudors generally, was never a big hit with history buffs, and, after reading it, I can completely understand why.<br />
<br />
The story isn't a good one for many reasons. First, it has an aura of complete impossibility about it, and often, what separates clever historical fiction from not-so-great historical fiction is believability in the context of historical events. Second, for about half of the book, none of the characters are particularly likeable. I will say that this issue improves during the course of the story, however, it may be difficult for even a determined reader to get to that point before giving up on it. <br />
<br />
Finney does several rather odd, and often unnecessary things that compromise the novel. At least a portion--if not all of it, although that isn't clear--of the story is "told" by the Virgin Mary. I'm not sure if there is anything quite more ridiculous than choosing a Biblical figure for the narrator. It's hard to figure out a way this could actually work, but, the obvious routes were ignored in this case. You would expect that Mary may make a comment or two about the religious conflict of the day, for example, or about the obvious parallels between Virgin Mary and Virgin Queen. <br />
<br />
The novel is also plagued by many characters that it could do without quite well. The Queen's Carey cousins appear, but, in the end, their role is too diminished to explain elongating the novel to include them. A set of circumstances surrounding one of Elizabeth's Ladies in Waiting could also have been sacrificed without any serious loss to the plot. In addition, the "secret" about Elizabeth is predictable, but, more than that, other authors have used the same plot device in much more effective, and interesting, ways. <br />
<br />
On one positive note, I will say that Finney picked probably the perfect pace through which to reveal the secrets in the story. At first, I felt that the main mystery was divulged too early, but in retrospect, I was very wrong about that. Once the pieces start to fit together, the story became more interesting and the characters far more likeable. Finney had so many characters that she resolved a few of their stories with a bit too much brevity at the end, but, overall, the novel improved exponentially after about the mid-point. However, several times, I almost gave up the book before I got that far.<br />
<br />
<strong>Rating:</strong> A 5. This isn't a great story overall, regardless of its improvements later on in the story.<br />
<strong>Buy It or Borrow It:</strong> Probably neither in this case, unfortunately. Although the novel improves, I don't think that saves it. Skip this one and try some other offerings.pilgrimchickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13808106043964544413noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3012721751896752923.post-25816173567258555182012-04-01T13:31:00.002-04:002013-07-31T23:58:38.620-04:00The Secret Diary of Anne Boleyn<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8LTFuGP1sRxl72tdV9AzeMug407xmILwKRlRIlO0nW6_umw4UG1y5gR3cAK54XzmRrmZPgA5kfKuSCuZPHCji0dumKDicEPDSs71dLUWliZTVWJs183XOC3n7epu5tCQgboDhd6nFUQ/s1600/SecretDiary.jpg"><img alt="" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8LTFuGP1sRxl72tdV9AzeMug407xmILwKRlRIlO0nW6_umw4UG1y5gR3cAK54XzmRrmZPgA5kfKuSCuZPHCji0dumKDicEPDSs71dLUWliZTVWJs183XOC3n7epu5tCQgboDhd6nFUQ/s320/SecretDiary.jpg" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5726486934142700514" style="cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 320px; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; width: 210px;" /></a><br />
<br />
<strong>Author:</strong> Robin Maxwell<br />
<strong>Publication Date:</strong> 1997<br />
<strong>Cost:</strong> It looks like the best way to get a hold of this book is via Kindle edition, and the price is $9.99. However, there are numerous used copies available for $6.00 or less.<br />
<strong>Where Did I Hear About It:</strong> This is another Booksfree selection.<br />
<br />
<strong>The Backstory</strong><br />
<br />
This novel follows two storylines concurrently throughout--the story of Anne Boleyn, coming to the attention of Henry VIII, becoming queen, and later being executed; and the story of Elizabeth, Anne's daughter by Henry, newly crowned queen and involving herself rather scandalously with Robert Dudley, a courtier and friend.<br />
<br />
Both sides of this story are examined fairly equally. Elizabeth's story is confined to a short period of, perhaps, months, while Anne's attempts to cover 14 years.<br />
<br />
In the novel, Elizabeth is approached by one Lady Somerville, the now elderly niece of Constable Kingston of the Tower of London. She presents Elizabeth with her mother's diary. The novel moves back and forth between the two stories, Elizabeth's history being interrupted by her taking time to read the diary. In the meantime, Elizabeth is confronted with the challenges associated with being head of state, conflict with Scotland, her love for Robert Dudley and the mysterious death of his wife, Amy, and the various help and problems presented to her by her faithful servants, Kat Ashley and William Cecil. <br />
<br />
The novel ends with the diary, documenting the last days of Anne's life, and Elizabeth's desire to learn about her mother's death from Lady Somerville. It also ends with one of Elizabeth's most fateful decisions, and the fulfillment of her mother's prophesy.<br />
<br />
<strong>What About the Book?</strong><br />
<br />
Robin Maxwell's "prequel" to this novel, <em>Virgin: Prelude to the Throne</em>, was earlier discussed <a href="http://voraciousmindbooks.blogspot.com/2011/09/virgin-prelude-to-throne.html">here</a>. The prequel was actually written a few years after this novel, but, I do think it is the superior of the two.<br />
<br />
<em>The Secret Diary</em> surprises the reader by focusing on Elizabeth first. I think, on the whole, the involvement of Elizabeth in this novel is very positive. Maxwell built an excellent bridge between these two novels in that many strands of the plot here are matched with explanatory mentions in the prequel. However, the prequel's story is far more compelling, probably due to Maxwell's far more clever and in-depth development of the character of Thomas Seymour in the prequel.<br />
<br />
It is clear that Maxwell is doing two things--setting the story up for Elizabeth's "revelation" at the end of the novel, and apologizing for Anne in the process. Anne is cast as willful, attempting to forge her own destiny, but still subject to the desires and uses of the men around her (which is a realistic concept). However, Anne is far from the character that many who have studied her character know--although Maxwell has Elizabeth briefly discussing how vindictive Anne was, Anne's character is far from vindictive and far from passionate as she is portrayed in the diary. <br />
<br />
Maxwell clearly wanted to cover the length of Anne's story in a rather short novel, so, in many cases, the diary entries' dates are few and far between, especially earlier on. Maxwell spends more time on periods of Anne's life that were particularly significant, and that seems appropriate. However, she also leaves out some important parts of Anne's story that we do know from a historical perspective, and, in other cases, a few important events are only given a line or two.<br />
<br />
I think this novel suffers from a huge number of missed opportunities. There were moments when you really think there is going to be a remarkable revelation of some kind, and you end up disappointed. For example, Anne meets up with Henry Percy at one point prior to her marriage to King Henry, and it is implied that they had a romantic tryst. This reader immediately thought that perhaps Anne's first child would have been the product of Anne and Henry Percy, and that would have been a fascinating revelation with multiple implications....that never happens. It's as if her meeting up with Henry Percy had absolutely no purpose at all.<br />
<br />
This novel also has some significant historical accuracy issues. At one point, Henry's past prior to his being marked out as his father's heir is discussed, and it is literally said that Henry VII predeceased his first son, Arthur. It is well known that Arthur died long before his father, and that Henry lived for many years as his father's designated heir as a result. In addition, Anne's last pregnancy is far too long to match up correctly with the historical record. She first mentions this pregnancy in May 1535, but she miscarries in January of the next year. This would have brought her very close to term. In reality, her January miscarriage (which is true) was estimated to have been the culmination of a 15 or 16 week pregnancy, and this was why it was so difficult to determine the gender of the child. If the child had been conceived in May, it would have been a miscarriage at between 7 and 8 months, and the gender of the child would have been quite obvious by that time (not to mention that miscarriages that late are extremely uncommon--at that point, the delivery of a child at that age would have been classified as a stillbirth).<br />
<br />
The sections focusing on Elizabeth are far superior to Anne's diary, which is a disappointment given the diary is the focus of the novel. The reader can't but wonder if Anne had been cast as a more complex, and perhaps a more malevolent, character, the novel would have been a far more interesting read.<br />
<br />
<strong>Rating:</strong> An easy read, actually, and not very long. I'll give it a 7.<br />
<strong>Buy It or Borrow It:</strong> Borrow this one. I doubt you'll read it again after your first go around the block. It would be useful, though, to read this before you read Maxwell's other novel.pilgrimchickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13808106043964544413noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3012721751896752923.post-33798140466448619472012-03-25T11:21:00.004-04:002013-07-31T23:59:17.198-04:00The Autobiography of Henry VIII<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlNbiFgfPXWaKnfUF3TPY3mCpMNLZAaSNpAm4Ubn1exxAzf0-BBsQfb0Uf9R5S6jfyer1jWFdhoGnb5PW_fMQEt5jhdTuJ4BLDxQ1SiOt_f6JecZwWtuhc_KXaPkdzNUwgQlkoD8onjA/s1600/AutobioHenry.jpg"><img alt="" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlNbiFgfPXWaKnfUF3TPY3mCpMNLZAaSNpAm4Ubn1exxAzf0-BBsQfb0Uf9R5S6jfyer1jWFdhoGnb5PW_fMQEt5jhdTuJ4BLDxQ1SiOt_f6JecZwWtuhc_KXaPkdzNUwgQlkoD8onjA/s320/AutobioHenry.jpg" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5723855804162597762" style="cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 320px; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; width: 211px;" /></a><br />
<br />
<strong>Author:</strong> Margaret George<br />
<strong>Publication Date:</strong> 1987<br />
<strong>Cost:</strong> The book is available new for just over $12.00 on Amazon, but the book has been in print for so long that, among used copies, the least expensive is a mere $0.20. The Kindle edition is on offer for $9.99.<br />
<strong>Where Did I Hear About it:</strong> I found this on offer at Booksfree.<br />
<br />
<strong>The Backstory</strong><br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOulca5OFBc6oKz1hcI5Qmmwy1uOz0fzlvB9PgD0Qw9PFUz_BPmxLTNioUqiGVADnNLtS3Zgdwlq75zKKTKJbRRcW7kjmchGRlf7DmXPj-1DLTmwXJj69oDFgP_3o6U65d6Ipr_v7jFA/s1600/AutobioHenry1.jpg"><img alt="" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOulca5OFBc6oKz1hcI5Qmmwy1uOz0fzlvB9PgD0Qw9PFUz_BPmxLTNioUqiGVADnNLtS3Zgdwlq75zKKTKJbRRcW7kjmchGRlf7DmXPj-1DLTmwXJj69oDFgP_3o6U65d6Ipr_v7jFA/s320/AutobioHenry1.jpg" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5723858231126744178" style="cursor: pointer; float: left; height: 320px; margin: 0px 10px 10px 0px; width: 212px;" /></a> Henry VIII was a rare man. He was also king during a rare time in history. Born in 1491 to usurper Tudor king, Henry VII and his wife, Elizabeth of York, Henry was the "spare heir" to his brother, Arthur. As with many younger brothers in this time period, he was originally intended for the church, but his fate altered drastically when Arthur died in 1502 having recently married Catherine of Aragon. All attention turned to Henry, who would succeed his father seven years later. <br />
<br />
Henry VIII was a very intelligent man who enjoyed both learning and intellectual debate. It is clear that there were high hopes for him when he became king. In addition to his exceptional talents, Henry's world was a place of upheaval and change in political, social, and religious order. Henry used his overbearing personality to get what he wanted from Parliament, and his domestic practices both bankrupted the country and damaged the economy. Henry's court was dominated by "new men": people who rose to prominence through force of will rather than by wealth and traditional family connections. Often, their rise corresponded to an eclipse of those who felt it was their hereditary right to be in the king's inner circle. It was during Henry's reign that the first effects of the Protestant Reformation could be felt in England. Although Henry zealously prescribed to the orthodox practices of the Catholic Church, his decision to renounce the authority of the Pope and declare himself "Supreme Head of the Church in England" invited a unintended reconsideration of Catholic Church practices. Henry built a cult of personality around himself as king, involving himself in these, and many other, aspects of the operations of his kingdom. <br />
<br />
It is clear that England, and perhaps the Western World, was a very different place in 1547 when Henry died. Since Henry's world, the kingdom of England, was very much about Henry by that time, it makes sense that a successful monarch post-Henry would be someone who understood this and could fill his large, undeniable place. Edward showed signs of some of these traits, but he perished long before he could exercise any personal control. Mary is consistently criticized for not understanding what she had to be to be a successful Queen of England. Elizabeth, however, perhaps more like Henry than any of his other children, did understand, and in doing so, became the first successful female monarch in England and ushered in the country's first Golden Age.<br />
<br />
<strong>What About the Book?</strong> <br />
<br />
Generally, scholars and authors take one of two directions when they choose to write about Henry: either they focus on the political and religous transformations during Henry's reign or they focus on Henry's remarkable marital history. Margaret George takes the latter approach to Henry's life in her rather extensive novel. The book is framed as a gift sent to Mary Boleyn's daughter, Catherine Carey, by Henry's former professional court fool, Will Somers. The implication, of course, is that Catherine is actually Henry's illegitimate daughter by the rather infamous sister of Anne Boleyn. The novel begins by setting these relationships in place through epistolary correspondance. The rest of the book is the text of Henry VIII's supposed autobiography with occasional notes written by Will throughout. <br />
<br />
First, this is a very long book--it is nearly 1,000 pages in length, although it is a rather easy read. Any book that attempts to cover six marriages in sufficient detail would inevitably turn out to be rather long. I have to admit that I was definitely drawn in by the first few chapters of the book focusing on Henry's experience with his father. If not compelling, there is no question that George frames this time period in Henry's life in a very interesting way. However, I will admit that this is the first book on this blog that I didn't actually finish. I got to the point where Henry VIII is considering a relationship with Catherine Parr, his sixth and final wife. Then, I stopped. Honestly, I had grown rather bored with the book, and I didn't feel like reading through yet another marriage for Henry, even if it were his last one. Although the novel does draw the reader in, it doesn't keep the reader's rapt attention after a certain point. In examining where my interest stopped and my desire to finish the novel began, the line would probably fall somewhere between Henry's marriage to Jane and Jane's death. <br />
<br />
The main problem with this novel is that, in an attempt to cover everything, not everything gets covered well. George gives color to earlier characters in ways she does not when it comes to later ones. For example, Wolsey and More are presented as both interesting and complicated people, but Cromwell could either be present or not be present and I'm not sure the reader would care either way. In addition, the book was clearly developed from a list of significant events in Henry's life rather than any deep consideration of those events. In an attempt to include everything, George doesn't develop very much of the story beyond the simple facts. Lengthy dialogue can be skipped by the reader without feeling as if something important were missed. Many people come and go in Henry's life without much of a mention or a thought. This approach would work depending upon what kind of a character Henry himself was given by the author. George clearly attempts to apologize for Henry--it is never actually Henry's fault if he has to kill off his closest advisors and wives. However, George's light character development does extend to Henry himself, and it is rather unbelievable that someone as "nice" as George's Henry would be so completely unaffected by the significant events, gains, and losses in his life. If George had instead painted Henry as a more ruthless, sociopathic character, this kind of approach would certainly be believable--and perhaps a bit more interesting to read.<br />
<br />
Will's commentary throughout the book features prominently in some places and is completely absent for chapter after chapter in others. In most cases, it is actually a very interesting footnote to the events in the novel, and I wish George had applied this with more regularity throughout.<br />
<br />
<strong>Rating:</strong> A 5. Any book I don't feel compelled to finish after spending so much time reading it clearly did not keep my attention or interest even to the point that I cared to ensure I completed it.<br />
<strong>Buy It or Borrow It:</strong> I understand that this was a bestselling novel, but that isn't an argument for reading anything at all. I'm not sure this book is worth reading, but, if you are interested, check your library first before peeling through a bookstore.pilgrimchickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13808106043964544413noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3012721751896752923.post-9439296593590467872012-03-04T16:01:00.003-05:002013-07-31T23:59:55.435-04:00The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj65CWN-ubhyPL1cF9iVJoNhCixN28xg9UkYtU6C1Up7GYVw3RShkrod2d0EloBR-QS47y-N49JpvOQ9q74mntQwVGLCxxq4LJIlmsd6eLh6n28NX8ExVES_eIVsljS4CPQNVmoEoOVSA/s1600/LDAnne.jpg"><img alt="" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj65CWN-ubhyPL1cF9iVJoNhCixN28xg9UkYtU6C1Up7GYVw3RShkrod2d0EloBR-QS47y-N49JpvOQ9q74mntQwVGLCxxq4LJIlmsd6eLh6n28NX8ExVES_eIVsljS4CPQNVmoEoOVSA/s320/LDAnne.jpg" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5716151346280049842" style="cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 320px; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; width: 213px;" /></a><br />
<br />
<strong>Author:</strong> Eric Ives<br />
<strong>Publication Date:</strong> 2004<br />
<strong>Cost:</strong> The book is available on amazon.com for just under $14.00, and the Kindle edition is slightly less expensive.<br />
<strong>Where Did I Hear About It:</strong> I looked this book up about two years ago, but I did not get a chance to read it cover to cover until now, although I have used it as a reference book several times.<br />
<br />
<strong>The Backstory</strong><br />
<br />
About a year and a half ago, I read Joanna Denny's biography of Anne Boleyn, and you can see the discussion of Anne's life <a href="http://voraciousmindbooks.blogspot.com/2010_08_01_archive.html">here</a>.<br />
<br />
<strong>What About the Book?</strong><br />
<br />
If I appreciate anything about this book, it is the fact that Eric Ives clearly knew the limitations of the sources available to compose a biography of his subject. Ives created an excellent analysis of what he had, but he did not offer any particular insight into his subject. If Joanna Denny ran amock with her theory that Anne was England's Protestant savior, Ives used all of the same sources, and more of them, without offering much new analysis. This is almost the exact opposite approach Ives took in his later work about <a href="http://voraciousmindbooks.blogspot.com/2010/05/lady-jane-grey-tudor-mystery.html">Jane Grey</a>.<br />
<br />
Ives truly used every source available to him, and more, to write this book, which makes it an extremely admirable effort. No other work about Anne Boleyn is a better piece of reference material. For example, the images he includes are absolutely remarkable and extensive. In addition, he explores Wyatt's poetry for references to Anne, and one gets the sense that he went through Wyatt's work poem by poem before coming to the conclusion that there wasn't very much to be found, whether direct or veiled references. He also discussed the varying images indicated to be Anne Boleyn and which ones were likely or unlikely accurate candidates. <br />
<br />
Although well-researched, Ives's work lacks insight. I think everyone who picks up a biography of Anne Boleyn is looking for insight into her personality and into why she captivated Henry VIII. Obviously, the sources are very much lacking here, but Ives does not offer anything new into the equation. The only exception is Anne Boleyn's fall, coming at the end of the book. Ives includes a lot of detailed information about Jane Seymour's appearance in Anne's and Henry's lives and whether or not Henry VIII had grown tired of Anne. However, Ives could have wrapped up the book a bit more completely with perhaps some information about references (or non-references and/or the destruction of references) to Anne after her execution and how Elizabeth's accession affected the public memory of Anne. Instead, Ives ends his biography with Anne's physical life, and this feels like a missed opportunity to the reader.<br />
<br />
Ives's book, for all of its research, is actually a very easy, and a fairly enjoyable read. It is also an excellent reference book on Anne Boleyn--a more complete resource does not exist. Although also well-researched (although less specific), Ives improves upon Starkey's rather salesman-esque writing style. This biography of Anne will be extremely hard to best, even by an exceptional scholar, unless new, undiscovered information comes to light.<br />
<br />
<strong>Rating:</strong> A 9 for writing style and use of a wide range of resources. <br />
<strong>Buy It or Borrow It:</strong> I would certainly buy it. It is extremely unlikely that a better biography will be published about Anne within the next generation. After reading it, if you're really interested in Anne or in Tudor history in general, this book will be an excellent resource to refer back to when considering historical fiction, television or film, or other scholars who consider a related subject.pilgrimchickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13808106043964544413noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3012721751896752923.post-59043618233117597812012-01-12T15:37:00.005-05:002013-08-01T00:01:24.458-04:00Katherine<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9ZVxqh_EecYrR2urbOcmx_0Evr0SLCOV-3R4lvTpULr_3C4d_iWE_modjLmv-Ov3IpCxJZPTd_6dGlYB3T6zzespPlQTqsvZs0ZgQ7Pd8pnc4dCQB7rx1GUFKYjplc5Dh0tw5wk_mkA/s1600/Katherine.jpg"><img alt="" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9ZVxqh_EecYrR2urbOcmx_0Evr0SLCOV-3R4lvTpULr_3C4d_iWE_modjLmv-Ov3IpCxJZPTd_6dGlYB3T6zzespPlQTqsvZs0ZgQ7Pd8pnc4dCQB7rx1GUFKYjplc5Dh0tw5wk_mkA/s320/Katherine.jpg" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5696848259036870034" style="cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 320px; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; width: 213px;" /></a><br />
<br />
<strong>Author:</strong> Anya Seton<br />
<strong>Publication Date:</strong> Originally published in 1954, but the edition of the book I read is 2004<br />
<strong>Cost:</strong> You can find this edition new for $10.95, but this book has been out a very long time, and there are many other editions available to you at varying prices. There is no Kindle edition.<br />
<strong>Where Did I Hear About It:</strong> I put this book on my Booksfree.com library list.<br />
<br />
<strong>The Backstory</strong><br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEge7Mia_XcO9RXWmOGZlQ9wyLUw4MKn_a6O5KiG3d4Xhdb5lYzAYAM9HuuIoksAVPF0m1Ieq2tyNF9s7sKinvJPODpykqUr6wUPiPgF62FZs40RsYxkiWPMXZR4ZpRv9AvglH0ieNMTqQ/s1600/KatSwynford.png"><img alt="" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEge7Mia_XcO9RXWmOGZlQ9wyLUw4MKn_a6O5KiG3d4Xhdb5lYzAYAM9HuuIoksAVPF0m1Ieq2tyNF9s7sKinvJPODpykqUr6wUPiPgF62FZs40RsYxkiWPMXZR4ZpRv9AvglH0ieNMTqQ/s320/KatSwynford.png" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5696849350806577874" style="cursor: pointer; float: left; height: 320px; margin: 0px 10px 10px 0px; width: 210px;" /></a> Katherine Swynford is most famously known for being the longtime mistress of John of Gaunt, third son of King Edward III. Their four illegitimate children were surnamed "Beaufort," and, it is in part through Henry VII's mother, Margaret Beaufort, that he claimed the English throne and began the Tudor dynasty in 1485.<br />
<br />
Regardless of some more detailed, recent research, there aren't many clear details about Katherine that are certainly known. Katherine was the daughter of Paon de Roet, a retainer from modern-day Belgium who became one of many people who moved to England when Edward III married Philippa of Hainault. Paon was knighted for his service to Philippa's new English family, and he died with the corresponding title "sir." Nothing is known about Katherine's mother. Historians believe that Katherine was brought up in court--perhaps at more than one court, and at least partially under the care of Queen Philippa, starting in 1352 when her father returned to Hainault. Katherine was joined by her younger sister, Philippa, who would later marry the famous Geoffrey Chaucer.<br />
<br />
Katherine married Sir Hugh Swynford sometime in the 1360s. Sir Hugh was the owner, by inheritance, of the small manors of Kettelthorpe and Coleby in Lincolnshire. Their children probably included Blanche (perhaps the eldest), Margaret (who would later become a nun in Barking Abbey), and Henry. Katherine was probably born around 1350, which would have made her a rather young bride, although it was rather common for the gentry to marry in their teens at the time. Their relationship did not last very long, and it was punctuated by long absences while Hugh fought abroad in France. Hugh died in 1371 while he was abroad leaving Katherine a very young widow.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijpifDVNMLkpX3Ejg-wDM-NuKHBYFrIfGKUQgUjXAR1U8AovJdjsORAlmknwYnf6f-SlSz684TkaZJnmoHx74-kgsFlcJBDwOYBr1e8rx6gMZ46Cu1029PAWc8O7buZgKrl3WTGXTVRQ/s1600/KatherineJohn.jpg"><img alt="" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijpifDVNMLkpX3Ejg-wDM-NuKHBYFrIfGKUQgUjXAR1U8AovJdjsORAlmknwYnf6f-SlSz684TkaZJnmoHx74-kgsFlcJBDwOYBr1e8rx6gMZ46Cu1029PAWc8O7buZgKrl3WTGXTVRQ/s320/KatherineJohn.jpg" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5696857529609229874" style="cursor: pointer; float: right; height: 255px; margin: 0px 0px 10px 10px; width: 200px;" /></a><br />
John of Gaunt was the third son of Edward III and Philippa of Hainault. The "of Gaunt" surname is an Anglified reference to Ghent, the place of his birth in 1340. John first married Blanche of Lancaster in 1359, and, after her sister's death three years later, he inherited control of all of the Duke of Lancaster's lands and his father conferred upon him the proper title. John was heavily involved in the Hundred Years War in France starting in 1369 to help his older brother, Edward the "Black Prince" in Aquitaine. Blanche died in the same year, and John married Constance of Castile in 1371. Constance was the rightful heir to her father, Peter the Cruel of Castile, who had been overthrown by Henry of Trastamara in 1368. Through his marriage to Constance, he was recognized as the King of Castile, although he never actually ruled there. By Blanche of Lancaster, John had Philippa (later Queen of Portugal), Elizabeth (later Duchess of Exeter), and Henry of Bolingbroke who would later overthrow his cousin, Richard II to become Henry IV of England. By Constance, he had a daughter, Catherine, who later married Henry III of Castile, ending the dynastic struggle in the country.<br />
<br />
It is conjectured that John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford began their affair between the death of Blanche of Lancaster and John's marriage to Constance of Castile. John would have known Katherine as governess to his two daughters, a position she took before Blanche died. By 1373, Katherine was working in Constance of Castile's household, and but their affair probably had already started. Katherine had the first of her four children probably in 1373: John Beaufort (1371<br />
3), Henry Beaufort (1375), Joan Beaufort (1377), and Thomas Beaufort (1381). John of Gaunt, however, was not a popular figure in England--he, like his father, was at the center of a government that had become increasingly unpopular due to high taxes and few military successes to show for them. John's London palace, the Savoy, was almost entirely destroyed by the Peasant's Revolt, led by Wat Tyler, in 1381. Soon afterward, John of Gaunt made a public renunciation of Katherine and their lives together. Constance of Castile died in 1394, and John of Gaunt married Katherine Swynford two years later. However, their marriage would not last long--John died in 1399 and was buried, by request, next to his first wife in St. Paul's Cathedral. Katherine, then Duchess of Lancaster, died in 1403 and was buried in Lincoln Cathedral, where she still rests.<br />
<br />
<strong>What About the Book?</strong> <br />
<br />
I have to say that although I was originally daunted by the length of the book (500 pages in very small print) and by its very early publication date, I was pleasantly surprised and very much enjoyed reading it.<br />
<br />
Katherine Swynford's story has not been too closely examined by too many scholars. The most notable biography is extremely recent (2007) by Alison Weir, and it was clear to me when I read this book that Katherine's life would make a much better novel in which literary licence could fill in the numerous blanks. In fact, it seems in retrospect that Weir was very familiar with Seton's novel. Weir makes may references to life events in Seton's novel, either to prove or disprove them, without actually mentioning the book. I wasn't aware of Seton's efforts when I first read Seton's biography, and I am very impressed by her novel. For the most part, she stayed true to the history and threw in many references to other, contemporary people and events, and this was written in an age where historical information about women was more than simply difficult to find. <br />
<br />
Seton is true to many historical events in the novel, including the Peasant's Revolt and the destruction of the Savoy Palace, Edward III's involvement with mistress Alice Perrers, and John of Gaunt's campaigns in the northern part of England. She did incorporate what details she had about Katherine Swynford's life fairly accurately. She does take a few liberties, but with so little concrete information, she can be forgiven for that. For example, she places Katherine at the Savoy when it was destroyed, which is unlikely. She also places Katherine with her husband abroad when he dies, which isn't completely improbable. She incorporates some very interesting characters--a very long list of them in fact, but they are much easier to keep track of than you might think given how many there are. I think that Geoffrey Chaucer would probably rank as the most underused interesting character of the bunch--Seton paints a very good picture of him, and it would have been great to have seen more of him in the narrative.<br />
<br />
One of the challenges with this novel is its length. Seton starts her book when Katherine is 15 and coming to court for the first time after being raised in an abbey (which Weir doesn't think was the case), and it ends just after Katherine and John have married. Although this is a long period of time to cover, it is more about how it is covered--the novel is divided into sections that correspond to years of Katherine's life, and each chapter is extremely detailed in its descriptions and interactions. I also found myself rather unconvinced by how Seton painted the beginnings of Katherine and John's affections. Their relationship felt far more solid to me as it was portrayed later on, but I didn't think some of the earlier stages were truly believable.<br />
<br />
I have to admit, though, that I regularly came back to this book when I had the opportunity, and I truly enjoyed it from the beginning to the end equally.<br />
<br />
Rating: A 9 as an interesting historical fiction. In the light of Weir's book, published much later and probably as well-researched as a biography of someone as relatively unknown as Katherine would be, it is about a 7 for historical accuracy.<br />
Buy It or Borrow It: Given how long this book has been around, I am sure you could find a copy of it for a very reasonable price somewhere, so it is worth buying. You may find it is hard to come by in a library. <br />
<br />
List of Images:<br />
<br />
Possible image of Katherine Swynford from the Troilus Frontispiece showing Chaucer reading his works to the court of Richard II<br />
<br />
John of Gaunt, ascribed to Luca Cornelli c. 1593pilgrimchickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13808106043964544413noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3012721751896752923.post-31578429095184312552011-12-30T09:47:00.002-05:002013-08-01T00:01:56.981-04:00Morality Play<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkK0ig4Hc8Ef0WzCbvUwTf_3jyvo0ujbBuNz9d1ofd4Qjwi21a-yWce-ErPxhnIDNODqCofZK2gkG2SHGHyu6lPqdEKOUa_9QliLkpJObM9aSkX5mOAUCG58drVDfLsFdxXUisswnP7Q/s1600/MoralityPlay.jpg"><img alt="" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkK0ig4Hc8Ef0WzCbvUwTf_3jyvo0ujbBuNz9d1ofd4Qjwi21a-yWce-ErPxhnIDNODqCofZK2gkG2SHGHyu6lPqdEKOUa_9QliLkpJObM9aSkX5mOAUCG58drVDfLsFdxXUisswnP7Q/s320/MoralityPlay.jpg" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5691933872656591458" style="cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 302px; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; width: 200px;" /></a><br />
<br />
<strong>Author:</strong> Barry Unsworth<br />
<strong>Publication Date:</strong> 1995<br />
<strong>Cost:</strong> The original list price is $13.95, but, since the book has been out for a while, I am sure you can find used copies for much less than that. The Kindle version will be released this January, and it will cost $11.99.<br />
<strong>Discovery:</strong> I found this book listed on Booksfree.com, and I added it to my list.<br />
<br />
<strong>The Backstory</strong><br />
<br />
The focus of this novel is a young priest, Nicholas, who deserted his diocese in the spring, and finds himself without a refuge as winter approaches. After fleeing a rather compromising situation, he crosses paths with a group of "players," or a traveling band of actors, standing over a dying one of their own. When they discover Nicholas, watching the troupe under the cover of darkness, he convinces them to allow him to join them to take their lost companion's place. They continue their journey, with Nicholas, to Durham where a sponsoring lord is waiting for their Christmas entertainment. On the way, they stop in a town to perform for extra money, and they learn about the very recent murder of a young man, Thomas Wells. A monk, serving the local lord, found the purse of coins Thomas Wells was carrying in a weaver's home, and the weaver's dumb daughter stands accused of the crime. One of the players convinces the others that it would be more interesting, and more profitable, to perform a play about the murder of Thomas Wells, however, their intentions and their attempts to gather information, get them more, and more deeply involved in the situation...<br />
<br />
There is very little concrete information about time or place in this novel. The action seems to take place after the plague years (1340s), and it certainly takes place in England as the players are on their way to Durham. However, all of the people are fictional, and many of the locations are not named. The book is not particularly long (only about 200 pages), and its action is confined to a few days--maybe two weeks or so--in December. The novel is "told" from Nicholas' perspective.<br />
<br />
<strong>What About the Book?</strong> <br />
<br />
Although an interesting read, I found this book's general atmosphere of abstraction a detriment to what could have been a much better story.<br />
<br />
The author clearly is familiar with medieval mystery plays. The longest and most detailed--and by far the best--chapters all describe the players' performances. If the author is equally well-versed in the history of the period, it is not revealed in the story. It may be the lack of time or place that creates the abstraction that detracts from the story. However, this abstraction also extends to the people the players meet along the way. None of them seem very real, and this is a product of the author's sacrifice of character development for the sake of the plot of the novel.<br />
<br />
Using the medium of the play to work out the mystery of Thomas Wells' death is a very creative idea, and it is very well executed in the book. Each performance prompts the characters to learn more by various means to improve the play with more details that answer the questions they, and the audience, pose. There is a lack of urgency, though, when it comes to the discovery of the truth in the mystery. First, the author, in the voice of Nicholas, eludes to how terrible circumstances to come will be in the novel, but the story never quite lives up to the implications previously made. In fact, should those allusions be removed, the novel would very much improve.<br />
<br />
It took me a very long time to finish this book, and I'm not sure I can blame distractions for that. I really think it was the abstract feel of the book that kept me from returning to it faithfully. I didn't at all feel connected to the characters--not even Nicholas. The second half of the book felt far more "real" than the first half, and I found myself really interested in finishing the story once I passed the halfway mark. After some Internet research, I get the sense that teachers are having students read this book in class--as a story, this isn't a bad choice, but if this is being used to teach the so-called "Middle Ages" to students, I would recommend against that. This story, honestly, could have been set at any time in any place. Turn this into a traveling acting troupe of the 19th century's story, and you wouldn't lose very much at all in the plot or the characters. <br />
<br />
<strong>Rating:</strong> I have to admit to having trouble assigning a rating to this book. I have settled on a 6.5 for the moment.<br />
<strong>Buy It or Borrow It:</strong> If you're a mystery fan and looking for something new and different, you can't go wrong either buying or borrowing this book. I would recommend against picking this up on Kindle after it comes out--paying close to $12 for this so long after its original publication when there are hundreds of used copies out there for less than half of that. And, it was popular enough that I am sure it is sitting in your local library right now. However, if you are looking for a good story set in Medieval England, I would recommend against it because there isn't very much truly medieval about this book that anchors it to the period.pilgrimchickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13808106043964544413noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3012721751896752923.post-13066965630813713742011-09-26T20:33:00.003-04:002013-08-01T00:02:44.296-04:00Virgin: Prelude to the Throne<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsd1-6f7kjvTCXCKSIU1kkzLivAVMHXvTYLSvsnzSL59sNByYwWYu6CbzVMx4jOca8q9AxCGpna9GbktAEG7Vpy2HLivWPBGXrU7MvhtYkCVbl8ntGzihBQfta8fSu3jYDI6eOX6S0mQ/s1600/Virgin.jpg"><img alt="" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsd1-6f7kjvTCXCKSIU1kkzLivAVMHXvTYLSvsnzSL59sNByYwWYu6CbzVMx4jOca8q9AxCGpna9GbktAEG7Vpy2HLivWPBGXrU7MvhtYkCVbl8ntGzihBQfta8fSu3jYDI6eOX6S0mQ/s320/Virgin.jpg" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5656831097171762674" style="cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 280px; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; width: 180px;" /></a><br />
<br />
<strong>Author:</strong> Robin Maxwell<br />
<strong>Publication Date:</strong> 2001<br />
<strong>Cost:</strong> New paperbacks are listed on Amazon for under $5.00, but this isn't available for Kindle.<br />
<strong>Where Did I Hear About It:</strong> I found this offered on my mail-away library subscription through Booksfree.<br />
<br />
<strong>The Backstory</strong><br />
<br />
The focus of this short novel is Elizabeth Tudor in her mid-teens, beginning with the death of her father, Henry VIII. The story covers a rather short period of time, extending only through the imprisonment of Thomas Seymour, the imprisonment of Elizabeth's servants, Kat Ashley and Thomas Parry, and Elizabeth's placement under house arrest for suspicion of conspiring marriage with Seymour without consent of Edward VI's Regency Council. Roughly, this covers about 2 years, 1547-1549.<br />
<br />
The main characters in this novel are: Elizabeth Tudor, Thomas Seymour, Edward Tudor, Catherine Parr, Kat Ashley, Thomas Parry, and Robert and John Dudley. Other key figures are marginalized, like Jane Grey, while still others are left almost entirely out of the story, like Mary Tudor who only makes a brief appearance in a court scene. <br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyrj_3HVEfsIKC5lrWWFK1H_pHKRkVzhdX2A2RHx1E54HMYCjymidnwSJpTeYU80-jvoCA-0K4hdwhb_xLTZKduNzz7o3qIQC3dCa7SX8_CluJUzxCIOpwvxrnelRYa8YjOfRXcKz5bQ/s1600/Virgin+Thomas+Seymour.jpg"><img alt="" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyrj_3HVEfsIKC5lrWWFK1H_pHKRkVzhdX2A2RHx1E54HMYCjymidnwSJpTeYU80-jvoCA-0K4hdwhb_xLTZKduNzz7o3qIQC3dCa7SX8_CluJUzxCIOpwvxrnelRYa8YjOfRXcKz5bQ/s320/Virgin+Thomas+Seymour.jpg" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5656833902986746850" style="cursor: pointer; float: left; height: 274px; margin: 0px 10px 10px 0px; width: 220px;" /></a>The novel opens at the death of Henry VIII and the accession of his son, the young Edward VI. Edward is generally advised, and almost completely controlled, by the Regency Council headed by Edward Seymour. Elizabeth is invited to join the household of Catherine Parr, sixth wife of Henry VIII left a widow upon his death. Catherine is almost immediately swept up in a whirlwind romance with Thomas Seymour, brother to Edward Seymour and uncle of the boy king. Although Catherine is deliriously happy to finally be married for love after three marriages to older men for duty's sake, Thomas' ambition is only thinly veiled, and his intentions toward the young, impressionable Elizabeth are increasingly suspect. It is clear that Thomas wants more than to be marginalized by the Regency Council and his powerful brother. <br />
<br />
The story focuses on the historical events of this slice of Tudor history, calling into question the effectiveness of the Regency Council, Edward's future as king, and what Elizabeth's fate may ultimately be.<br />
<br />
<strong>What About the Book? </strong> <br />
<br />
Although a short novel, it is probably one of the more historically accurate ones that I have read. Nearly all of the main events in the novel check out historically, and the timeline has not been compromised in an attempt to make the story more compelling. <br />
<br />
Two things surprised me about this novel--first, that one of the main characters is Thomas Seymour and second, that the story only covers two years. Although Thomas Seymour is undoubtedly an important figure in this time frame, it feels odd to focus on him the way this author does, but this unexpected perspective is fresh and enjoyable in many ways. The title of the book, "Virgin: Prelude to the Throne," implies to me a storyline that incorporates Elizabeth's history from the death of Henry VIII to her own accession, so it surprised me that the story concludes in 1549, which is well before the death of her brother, Edward. <br />
<br />
Character development is certainly light. With one exception, pretty much every character can be classified as either "good" or "bad." If good, all motives are all good, and vice versa. This is what makes the characters a little unbelievable, including Elizabeth. However, the progression of the plot is quick and compelling, so, in such a short novel, the reader is apt to forgive this deficiency. All in all, this is a good story, and it is rather disappointing that it wasn't followed-up by the author with a second volume that moved the story through to the end of Elizabeth's historical "prelude."<br />
<br />
<strong>Rating:</strong> 8. This is a fun story to read, and you won't lose anything on the history by reading it because the author is so historically accurate.<br />
<strong>Buy It or Borrow It:</strong> This is going to be a hard book to find. It is labeled as a "rare book" on the Booksfree library list. Have a look in the library for this book, but, at only around $5.00, you can't go wrong purchasing it.<br />
<br />
<strong>Images:</strong> <br />
<br />
Thomas Seymour by an unknown painterpilgrimchickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13808106043964544413noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3012721751896752923.post-65288592510650076702011-09-24T12:43:00.012-04:002011-09-24T14:12:36.941-04:00The Tudors Cheat Sheet: Children of Henry VIII<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGxYzQzspeCBbvnwvyWaAcNGggSVbvzFPOC9onoAJN-ReasZ7fZKlY-G0_h40GnZubgbmn9x5_s3h9wIM2zoSTh5R1enM_9i7xEwTbH6JYR04yHTZaugDWlni_f51veyOqa_HU5VZAyg/s1600/Children+Lead+infant.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear:left; float:left;margin-right:1em; margin-bottom:1em"><img border="0" height="214" width="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGxYzQzspeCBbvnwvyWaAcNGggSVbvzFPOC9onoAJN-ReasZ7fZKlY-G0_h40GnZubgbmn9x5_s3h9wIM2zoSTh5R1enM_9i7xEwTbH6JYR04yHTZaugDWlni_f51veyOqa_HU5VZAyg/s320/Children+Lead+infant.jpg" /></a><br />One of the biggest issues that carries through all four seasons of <i>The Tudors</i> is Henry VIII's children--who they are, what they are, when they came along...the avid watcher hears about this from episode one straight through until the end of the series.<br /><br />Historically speaking, was this as big an issue for the real Henry VIII as it was for the TV character? I'm honestly not as certain as other historians are about that. I believe that his problems centered more on the here and now rather than what was going to happen after he died. For example, many historians believe that the end of Henry VIII's spectacular love affair with Anne Boleyn had more to do with Anne's inability to give him his longed-for son than Henry himself, Anne herself, or the relationship they created together. I disagree. Perhaps David Starkey, an English historian, came closest to the truth when he surmised that Henry was unusual in that he seemed to be seeking happiness in marriage at a time when marriage was often noted to produce the opposite effect. I am not sure that hits the nail on the head, so to speak, but it is the first hypothesis I have ever read that took something OTHER than a preoccupation with children into account to explain Henry VIII's rather bizarre marital behavior.<br /><br />Here is some background information about Henry's acknowledged children. Henry had four living children that he acknowledged as his own in one way or another. It should be noted that although he declared his two daughters, Mary and Elizabeth, bastards at one time or another, there is no indication that he did not consider them his own, natural children. To be "bastardized" was more of a function of the law to prevent inheritance of lands or titles rather than a mark of suspicious parentage in this case. There has also been speculation that one or more of the children of Mary Boleyn, older sister to Anne, may have been Henry's, but, as he never acknowledged them, they will not be considered here.<br /><br /><b>Mary</b><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguT8p4bZg72PQ6HXvHO6mdv7QXMx5FXOmgUaBvmjrATWoN8vDhWWKNvjfwY5YrThlzUP6_UcEXXYxrhdfDPXDdRWF-DZ69YrA2WyLke2PQhZnlUWTtMTOS7BZAthd5vN6LzKinmR9aqw/s1600/MaryTudor.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 250px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguT8p4bZg72PQ6HXvHO6mdv7QXMx5FXOmgUaBvmjrATWoN8vDhWWKNvjfwY5YrThlzUP6_UcEXXYxrhdfDPXDdRWF-DZ69YrA2WyLke2PQhZnlUWTtMTOS7BZAthd5vN6LzKinmR9aqw/s320/MaryTudor.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5655969196683193634" /></a> Birth Year: 1516<br />Death Year: 1558<br />Mother: Catherine of Aragon<br />Spouse: Philip of Spain (1554)<br /><br />Mary was Henry's first living child, and she was a very welcome addition to the family. Henry married Mary's mother, Catherine of Aragon, in 1509, and a series of failed pregnancies followed. Mary was a bright, if pensive, child. She was betrothed to several of Europe's most eligible bachelors during her childhood, but none of them came to fruition as England's status, and religious unity, was regularly in question. Abroad, no one questioned Mary's legitimacy. Catherine had an impeccable reputation of fidelity.<br /><br />Problems in Mary's life began at the same time as Catherine's divorce. All signs point to the fact that Henry wanted to have his way, and his way meant putting aside his first wife, putting aside his daughter if necessary, and having Anne Boleyn by his side. <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgp2PbWKfyi6ea2TGCt67psYc5UH5Cw5g0_49QF0ISpKQEiueHUr8DfjJTSrLLFmsdb01nNMWhdFpnkfyB_XsLLbP3emjml1gqXVAZDHkDsacxNeu5vZQ2nk_bK2TVfzlDMQE_xOxDlDA/s1600/Children+Mary.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 213px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgp2PbWKfyi6ea2TGCt67psYc5UH5Cw5g0_49QF0ISpKQEiueHUr8DfjJTSrLLFmsdb01nNMWhdFpnkfyB_XsLLbP3emjml1gqXVAZDHkDsacxNeu5vZQ2nk_bK2TVfzlDMQE_xOxDlDA/s320/Children+Mary.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5655971830390353090" /></a><br />Catherine was defiant, as was Mary to a point, and this only raised Henry's ire and probably precipitated Henry's breach with Mary early in her life. Henry's subsequent queens were instrumental in bringing father and daughter back together later in his reign.<br /><br /><strong>What Happened to Mary?</strong><br /><br />After Henry VIII died, many attempts were made to marginalize Mary by the primarily-Protestant members of her brother, Edward's, council. The ultimate result of this was an attempt to write both Mary and Elizabeth out of the line of succession and pass the crown on from Edward to Jane Grey, their cousin. This attempt was a huge failure--Edward's council did not count on the fact that the English people fervently supported the rights of other members of Henry's immediate family to sit on the throne. Mary became queen in 1553 and married Philip of Spain, who made only a few brief trips to England. Mary died in 1558 of what may have been ovarian or uterine cancer, but she may have succumbed to an influenza epidemic that was raging at the time she took particularly ill. Mary and Philip had no children.<br /><br /><strong>Elizabeth</strong><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEilDbY9-RgUsA-AQGlvSY_X0MStigAjvoBAK97NHSYAnI05m2VqQz7Lll2aRnbELMIwGqic9XyGzr4Lq3YQ2auh-USi3BRCMEq4q-rItWWU3cv35FEq-7uKRbnHgkZHAn5ReWZfHfCzeQ/s1600/Children+Elizabeth+Old.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 238px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEilDbY9-RgUsA-AQGlvSY_X0MStigAjvoBAK97NHSYAnI05m2VqQz7Lll2aRnbELMIwGqic9XyGzr4Lq3YQ2auh-USi3BRCMEq4q-rItWWU3cv35FEq-7uKRbnHgkZHAn5ReWZfHfCzeQ/s320/Children+Elizabeth+Old.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5655975532720352946" /></a> Birth Year: 1533<br />Death Year: 1603<br />Mother: Anne Boleyn<br />Spouse: None<br /><br />Elizabeth, known by all TV series, movies, and by a famous quote by Henry about "boys will follow," as the disappointment, was the first, and only, living child born to Anne Boleyn and Henry VIII. We'd like to think that had Henry VIII known how successful and famous Elizabeth would later be, he may have treated his daughter a bit differently. Elizabeth was known to be as bright as Mary, but seemingly more clever, quick-witted, and able to work with (and around) others. As soon as her mother was accused of adultery, Elizabeth's position, and future, were altered. She, like Mary, was declared a bastard, and her relationship with her father was strained. She was also reconciled to him by his subsequent wives.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdZPE-z_NfvdeZD7x16e53M9wzP1_5tXBOgScokDfJjc45rhGd2uApZEslfRJc4X4uCqsowHfpSyfnUIQOnCNOe4i9X0MtjxFQ4X3xabBZRR13Of_O0n1cUGTJggPLy_Q7v2A-3Lj16Q/s1600/Children+Elizabeth.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 213px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdZPE-z_NfvdeZD7x16e53M9wzP1_5tXBOgScokDfJjc45rhGd2uApZEslfRJc4X4uCqsowHfpSyfnUIQOnCNOe4i9X0MtjxFQ4X3xabBZRR13Of_O0n1cUGTJggPLy_Q7v2A-3Lj16Q/s320/Children+Elizabeth.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5655977737982792994" /></a><br />Elizabeth was unofficially Protestant, and she was subsequently left alone during Edward's reign, but after Edward died, her life became more complicated. Elizabeth was implicated in a rebellion started by Thomas Wyatt, not against Catholicism, but instead against Mary's determination to marry Philip of Spain. This led to Elizabeth's brief imprisonment and interrogation in the Tower of London and her living most of the rest of Mary's reign under house arrest.<br /><br /><strong>What Happened to Elizabeth?</strong><br /><br />I think we all know the answer to this question, so I will not belabor the point. Elizabeth succeeded her sister Mary in 1558, and she reigned for about 45 successful years. Many aspects of her reign have been examined and discussed by scholars, including her involvement in piracy, religious policy, her relationship with court favorites like Robert Dudley, her key advisers, and the issue of Mary, Queen of Scots. Elizabeth, from most historians' perspectives, was the most successful of Henry's children given a "Golden Age" takes her name.<br /><br /><strong>Edward</strong><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4PGS4kA68WbVPKkd2p2qolJTsm9FRfvXnXqn0IouQyHnFGdGa1rvz0QQAITe0P9dy1Zf8e_v2in-uoVAGiKrbXWpPAApFgLuLHXjv8Z-uiyfXcacTCt7KQy_kt3TTrTz_Rp9hPIfxFA/s1600/Children+Edward+Old.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 253px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4PGS4kA68WbVPKkd2p2qolJTsm9FRfvXnXqn0IouQyHnFGdGa1rvz0QQAITe0P9dy1Zf8e_v2in-uoVAGiKrbXWpPAApFgLuLHXjv8Z-uiyfXcacTCt7KQy_kt3TTrTz_Rp9hPIfxFA/s320/Children+Edward+Old.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5655978714410988082" /></a><br />Birth Year: 1537<br />Death Year: 1553<br />Mother: Jane Seymour<br />Spouse: None<br /><br />Edward, supposedly Henry's longed-for son, was the product of the very brief marriage of Henry VIII and his third wife, Jane Seymour. Edward was only 9 when Henry died, and this necessitated the creation of a Regency Council to raise, rule, and advise Edward until he reached an age of majority. The main player on this council was Edward Seymour, Jane's brother, and there has been a lot of speculation about his machinations before and during this time. Some historians believe that he may have actually altered Henry VIII's will. Edward Seymour later fell from power and was replaced by John Dudley. <br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgE-gDTRo0AqWPnubm2P-qSb7eGvqt0AbsuVlZXWyAtm1iz1ZxSTifSsxAWmH1QHjenn06VoMjJq3C3EGkqrH1XDQu-T32ogDO_9pzVbQQ_5Dvop5B1oxNxkSiK5Mjl3ib98VS-jHT6VA/s1600/Children+Lead+or+Edward.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 213px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgE-gDTRo0AqWPnubm2P-qSb7eGvqt0AbsuVlZXWyAtm1iz1ZxSTifSsxAWmH1QHjenn06VoMjJq3C3EGkqrH1XDQu-T32ogDO_9pzVbQQ_5Dvop5B1oxNxkSiK5Mjl3ib98VS-jHT6VA/s320/Children+Lead+or+Edward.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5655982810098081954" /></a>Edward was a bright child, if easily led by his two power-hungry uncles--Edward and his brother, Thomas Seymour. He was educated and influenced by a Protestant circle, and this led to a breach between he and his Catholic sister, Mary. Edward was thoughtful, and he was clearly raised to be a king. Under the guidance of his council, he furthered Protestant reform in England to probably the most extreme degree it would get to until the 17th century. <br /><br /><strong>What happened to Edward?</strong> <br /><br />Edward died very young in 1553. It isn't clear what the cause of death was--at the beginning of 1553, he started with a fever and a cough that gradually grew worse. An autopsy revealed that his lungs were to blame, and a diagnosis of tuberculous was proposed and is generally accepted. Some historians have postulated that he could have succumbed to some form of poisoning as well, but this has never been proven particularly convincingly. Jane Grey, written into Edward's plans for the succession as next in line to the throne, famously followed Edward's death with a reign of nine days. John Dudley, thought to be the author of this alteration, didn't count on Mary's popularity, and both he and Jane were later executed.<br /><br /><strong>Henry Fitzroy</strong><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjo6w8g9rhYqG1yGWnQrzLFr-utshQLx3vcp9MTaVPNBxjm0yEqfufej0dKiQDXp20q_ZRoutaGR4mLGTn9iVxgscLlbS1cY13jcI99NWyKTVTmKZJQ56nLpcGB0WPVEDq5ipZy4oqNtQ/s1600/Children+Henry+Fitzroy+Old.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjo6w8g9rhYqG1yGWnQrzLFr-utshQLx3vcp9MTaVPNBxjm0yEqfufej0dKiQDXp20q_ZRoutaGR4mLGTn9iVxgscLlbS1cY13jcI99NWyKTVTmKZJQ56nLpcGB0WPVEDq5ipZy4oqNtQ/s320/Children+Henry+Fitzroy+Old.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5655982567675597026" /></a> Birth Year: 1519<br />Death Year: 1536<br />Mother: Elizabeth Blount<br />Spouse: Lady Mary Howard<br /><br />One of the biggest errors in <em>The Tudors</em> is in Henry Fitzroy's story. According to the series, Henry dies at the age of 5 or 6, which completely devastates Henry VIII. In reality, Henry Fitzroy was well into his teen years before he died, and he was married, too.<br /><br />Henry was the illegitimate product of Henry VIII's relationship with Elizabeth Blount, lady in waiting to Catherine of Aragon. Although <em>The Tudors</em> makes Henry VIII appear to be the worst of 16th century fratboys when it comes to women, the evidence is greatly to the contrary. Henry seems to have had more longer-term relationships with the few mistresses he took. Henry's relationship with Elizabeth Blount seems to have entirely ended after Henry Fitzroy's birth.<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCLbz1W4gVyaaW1Cd0NFFWBXwXAtE-kSJzxc8MU6bmYZGvQR4OIHH60jsEd8_moNZd859mScRiIHfT73Wzna86y339jxMz2B3EVkdrYZwdcJB3XLZVr5ePLFHyh_oZNApBBctx8fymdA/s1600/Children+Henry+Fitzroy.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 238px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCLbz1W4gVyaaW1Cd0NFFWBXwXAtE-kSJzxc8MU6bmYZGvQR4OIHH60jsEd8_moNZd859mScRiIHfT73Wzna86y339jxMz2B3EVkdrYZwdcJB3XLZVr5ePLFHyh_oZNApBBctx8fymdA/s320/Children+Henry+Fitzroy.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5655985226512417778" /></a>She married Gilbert Talboys, but Henry Fitzroy did not enter the scene until he was around six years old and the shower of titles and appointments started. His first were some of the most important--Earl of Nottingham and Duke of Richmond and Somerset. He was also given the title Lord High Admiral of England and Lord President of the Council of the North. There is no question that Henry VIII was preparing his son for great things. Whether or not he considered him a potential solution to his lack of male children is another question, though, and it calls into consideration whether Henry VIII may have considered not having a legitimate son a problem at all. Since many historians think that Henry WAS bothered by this fact, they point to a brief period in Henry VIII's life when he seems to have marked out Henry Fitzroy as his heir, but this is only speculative.<br /><br /><strong>What Happened to Henry Fitzroy?</strong><br /><br />In 1533, Henry Fitzroy was married to Lady Mary Howard, the daughter of Thomas Howard, the powerful Duke of Norfolk. Henry Fitzroy was noticed to be somewhat sickly perhaps a year or so before his death, and he died rather suddenly in 1536. Because Henry VIII took such an interest in his life and upbringing, it can be speculated that Henry was probably very moved by his son's death. Whether this increased an inclination for male children, though, is another matter.<br /><br /><strong>Images (Historical):</strong><br /><br />Mary I by Hans Eworth c. 1555-1558<br /><br />Elizabeth Tudor, Flemish School, c. 1546<br /><br />Edward VI, circle of William Scrots<br /><br />Henry Fitzroy, Lucas Horneboltepilgrimchickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13808106043964544413noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3012721751896752923.post-81996917896653708372011-08-28T14:50:00.007-04:002011-08-28T19:43:10.558-04:00Did Cardinal Wolsey Commit Suicide?<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-GRpVm0Kk9kRq8R1xqR4ZEo7TWfCp4qNboNd8fTfm49sSQnVhQN2VHRsc4PbyJTq3IAxH1YxifJ4IP4TKKARAYi4ipcEH-c7NDAoQa_F3vS60Pxhzt-KssnOPAQYw-b53Eu9ZIX53eQ/s1600/Cardinal+wolsey+Tudors.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 214px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-GRpVm0Kk9kRq8R1xqR4ZEo7TWfCp4qNboNd8fTfm49sSQnVhQN2VHRsc4PbyJTq3IAxH1YxifJ4IP4TKKARAYi4ipcEH-c7NDAoQa_F3vS60Pxhzt-KssnOPAQYw-b53Eu9ZIX53eQ/s320/Cardinal+wolsey+Tudors.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5645982390028126098" /></a>
<br /><strong>Cardinal Wolsey</strong>, Archbishop of York, a Roman Catholic Cardinal, Henry VIII's chancellor, trusted official, and friend, meets an untimely end in prison on his way to London after his arrest in York. Season one of <em>The Tudors</em> documents two major plot developments--Henry VIII's growing infatuation with Anne Boleyn and his desire to end his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, and the fall of Cardinal Wolsey. Wolsey is Henry VIII's closest advisor in episode one and in prison by the finale of the season--a remarkable victim of political circumstances and his own maneuvering, greed, and desire for power.
<br />
<br />Cardinal Wolsey begins to lose his grip on power, and on Henry, when he is unable to use his influence over the Pope to secure Henry's divorce from Catherine of Aragon. To counter the familial alliance between Catherine and Holy Roman Emperor, <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPdnNWFEq8qaWENltdhnIfSSKpjOtkCkpFRlyKzNP9dh4xpLvZqBqh_pjZQtjU41inSehBJInlUCprVGMaf_cFDfyVZCbsfV5HrczrxZyHbqnP0aeGS6KFxiiDEg4lMoHe6VXVyH-mMg/s1600/Cardinal+Wolsey+Henry+T.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 225px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPdnNWFEq8qaWENltdhnIfSSKpjOtkCkpFRlyKzNP9dh4xpLvZqBqh_pjZQtjU41inSehBJInlUCprVGMaf_cFDfyVZCbsfV5HrczrxZyHbqnP0aeGS6KFxiiDEg4lMoHe6VXVyH-mMg/s320/Cardinal+Wolsey+Henry+T.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5645987054736005458" /></a>
<br />Charles, Wolsey attempts to gain the support of the French clergy to pronounce judgment on the matter while the Pope remained under the control of Charles' military and politics. This fails, and a Papal representative, Cardinal Campeggio, is sent to arbitrate on the matter. The result? After months of deliberation, the case must be tried in Rome.
<br />
<br />All along, Anne Boleyn and her family work carefully against Wolsey, and this culminates in Wolsey being stripped of his post as chancellor. He returns to York, but Anne Boleyn and her family still fear his potential return to power. A letter is intercepted written by Wolsey to Catherine of Aragon, and this prompts his arrest. Cardinal Wolsey is arrested in York by the Duke of Suffolk, and, on the way to London, he kills himself in prison.
<br />
<br />So, how true is this story?
<br />
<br /><strong>Who Was Cardinal Wolsey?</strong>
<br />
<br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEid1U3ECYPBiiYamXgvqgu9ZkzUVad0vTa047CAC-QkZ6ZgDk7RE5ofp7XVwnuszPLYeAtBeQ752lqdoWrQZIEsK-4ydmnyXn3mL_GspPUfPxBz0r-K5cX5RSP7hOy7OKpDhz432Ey0Gw/s1600/Cardinal+Wolsey+Or1.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 234px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEid1U3ECYPBiiYamXgvqgu9ZkzUVad0vTa047CAC-QkZ6ZgDk7RE5ofp7XVwnuszPLYeAtBeQ752lqdoWrQZIEsK-4ydmnyXn3mL_GspPUfPxBz0r-K5cX5RSP7hOy7OKpDhz432Ey0Gw/s320/Cardinal+Wolsey+Or1.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5645987863929526050" /></a>
<br />Thomas Wolsey, unlike many other high-ranking governmental officials traditionally in the English government to this point, was not nobility. Contemporaries branded him the son of a butcher, but it is equally probable that his family's origins were mercantile. He was born around 1473, and he had an excellent education at an early age. Wolsey was recommended to Henry VII by Sir Richard Nanfan, Deputy Lieutenant of Calais, and he became a royal chaplain in 1507. Wolsey joined the Privy Council of Henry VIII in 1509, but he proved himself energetically loyal to Henry during his campaign against the French between 1512 and 1514. This truly secured royal patronage, favoritism, and advancement.
<br />
<br /><strong>Wolsey's Downfall</strong>
<br />
<br />Depending upon, and being trusted by the king had its drawbacks. First and foremost, Cardinal Wolsey made many enemies during his career. He introduced methods of forced loans, a means of taxation without Parliamentary approval, to help fund Henry's campaigns abroad. Many people who had been handicapped in their advancement in office similarly hated Wolsey. When Henry VIII wanted to divorce his wife, Catherine of Aragon, he naturally turned to Wolsey, both trusted advisor and Catholic Cardinal, to help bring the situation to the desired closing. The stumbling block was the Pope, Clement VII, who was beset by Catherine's nephew, Charles, and unwilling to provoke the Holy Roman Emperor by appeasing Henry, even if Henry's conscience was truly troubled by having married his dead brother's bride. Clement did allow for Henry and Catherine's case to be heard by Wolsey and Cardinal Campeggio in England at first in 1528, but Clement recalled the case to be heard in Rome and Rome alone. In the meantime, Wolsey's enemies, including Anne Boleyn's family, were set about convincing Henry that Wolsey was deliberately stalling the proceedings. Wolsey was not invited to join the council when it met in 1529. Instead, he was given the option to appear before Parliament to hear a to-be created list of grievances against him or to throw himself upon the king's mercy. He chose the latter option.
<br />
<br />Cardinal Wolsey was deprived of a number of his offices and his estates, which were forfeit to the crown. He was allowed, however, to retain the office of Archbishop of York, and he began the journey north late in 1529. He had reason to believe that the king wasn't irrevocably against him--he received both rings and promises from him, and he was even attended by the king's personal physician when he fell ill in January 1530.
<br />
<br />Cardinal Wolsey's biggest problem was his own ambition. It is clear, viewing his entire career, that ambition and love of power truly drove him. When bishoprics became vacant, he chose his own candidates or appointed himself to the post to collect the profits. He worked out his own agreements with the King of France and the Holy Roman Emperor in the hope that he would be elected pope, which never came to pass. Once evicted from the seat of power, Wolsey sought power in any form he could find it, including communicating with the Holy Roman Empire's ambassador to England, Chapuys, claiming he could give him important information about Henry. Wolsey also communicated with Clement, and this was enough for Henry. Wolsey may, or may not, have truly been working against Henry. More likely, he was trying to hold on to the different spheres of influence he had gained when he was in power in the hopes he could emerge in the future from exile still a significant power-player in Europe. Henry, encouraged by Wolsey's enemies, decided instead this was treason.
<br />
<br /><strong>Wolsey's Death</strong>
<br />
<br />On November 4, 1530, the Earl of Northumberland arrested Wolsey at Cawood. From there, he was taken to Sheffield Park. On November 22, Sir William Kingston, Constable of the Tower of London arrived with the Tower guard. He continued south, under guard, to Leicester where the party stopped at the abbey of St. Mary. However, he had been ill with a bowel infection for some time, and it was clear upon arrival that he wasn't going to travel any farther alive. The Cardinal died on November 30, 1530, and he was buried in the Lady Chapel of the abbey.
<br />
<br /><strong>Verdict</strong>
<br />
<br />The interpretation put forth by <em>The Tudors</em> series is highly improbable. In the series, it is implied that Wolsey killed himself, and Henry, once made aware, immediately ordered that the suicide be covered up. Wolsey was simply surrounded by too many people who could account for the circumstances to have killed himself and it have been "swept under the rug" for the ages. The Constable of the Tower, his guard, the abbot of St. Mary's, and the brothers would have made up a band of perhaps 75 people, all of whom would have had a fairly intimate knowledge of the events. Even if Henry had somehow successfully managed to cover up Wolsey's suicide, Henry became the enemy of all monastic orders when he dissolved their establishments in England later in his reign. His daughter, Mary, was a fully-pledged Catholic herself, and both of these circumstances would have afforded opportunities for disaffected people to talk, even if they had been somehow silenced or paid off previously. In addition, it may have been to Henry's advantage to have allowed Cardinal Wolsey's suicide to become public knowledge. Wolsey's enemies would have rejoiced, if rather quietly given the scandal of the circumstances. Wolsey could have been denounced as "ungodly" and used as an example of how pride produces a fall--and that would have single-handedly destroyed his remaining reputation and have handicapped anyone who sympathized with him.
<br />
<br />The contemporary series of events was never challenged in later, more tolerant, ages. Therefore, there is no question that this was put into the narrative of the series for dramatic effect and there is absolutely no basis for it from a historical standpoint.
<br />
<br /><strong>Image:</strong>
<br />
<br />Cardinal Wolsey by Sampson Strong, painted at Christ Church, 1526.pilgrimchickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13808106043964544413noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3012721751896752923.post-6526771491459018302011-08-15T20:27:00.004-04:002011-08-15T21:20:17.270-04:00Kingston by Starlight (Historical Fiction)<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_wPFNLdh7pp9yHQlF2wbUguhPhSA695ADQL-aKJ-WZ5XIOVd8cQ3wiFzgD-krpIP8mfXXcEjhyphenhyphenh-0I91SxxHAArKnKQclBpxPtAthnHnQopfk3uSMqk8bVbP-ucJ4JK39irzXIRSYeg/s1600/Kingston.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 206px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_wPFNLdh7pp9yHQlF2wbUguhPhSA695ADQL-aKJ-WZ5XIOVd8cQ3wiFzgD-krpIP8mfXXcEjhyphenhyphenh-0I91SxxHAArKnKQclBpxPtAthnHnQopfk3uSMqk8bVbP-ucJ4JK39irzXIRSYeg/s320/Kingston.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5641244173096885410" /></a>
<br />
<br /><strong>Author:</strong> Christopher John Farley
<br /><strong>Publication Date:</strong> 2005
<br /><strong>Cost:</strong> You can find new copies on Amazon for as low as $2.00 and a Kindle edition is available for $9.99.
<br /><strong>Where Did I Hear About It:</strong> A "friend" on Facebook mentioned that she was looking forward to reading it this summer, so I borrowed a copy from BooksFree, the online library.
<br />
<br /><strong>The Backstory</strong>
<br />
<br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYrJlPhQW4rapGa3cYcPMbV07OROPmfdG-y8sceE6WQgFpLhWngox3eqlbliDuaG2QiYJ_jc8Dxk1roz5u_Zq5ONXikP_kY9ln_Qvu_TQFWS7AA1uILRnyHvvH_s0VVTERa3xQ2mRUPQ/s1600/BonnyandRead.gif"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 226px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYrJlPhQW4rapGa3cYcPMbV07OROPmfdG-y8sceE6WQgFpLhWngox3eqlbliDuaG2QiYJ_jc8Dxk1roz5u_Zq5ONXikP_kY9ln_Qvu_TQFWS7AA1uILRnyHvvH_s0VVTERa3xQ2mRUPQ/s320/BonnyandRead.gif" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5641245744970129346" /></a> The subject of this novel, told from a first-person perspective, is Anne Bonny, a woman in the 18th century who turned, on and off, to a life of piracy, if the few accounts about her life are to be entirely believed. Bonny was an Irish woman supposedly born sometime between the end of the 17th century and the beginning of the 18th century. Anne was reputed to be a beautiful woman with a rather intemperate spirit, and she married a rather poor sailor while she was quite young. One of the few details of her life that is known is that she moved to Nassau in the Bahamas before 1720 with her husband. Later, she became intimately involved with pirate Calico Jack Rackham, and she had a child by him in Cuba whose fate is unknown. Apparently, her husband didn't take lightly to this relationship, and he brought Anne before the Royal Governor of the Bahamas demanding that she be punished for her infidelity. Although she was sentenced to be flogged, she managed to escape with Rackham and another female pirate of equally unknown origin, Mary Read.
<br />
<br />Mary Read, if true, had a remarkable life as a professional sailor. Read started out on a merchant vessel, but she actually managed to join the British military, and she may actually have seen some action. She supposedly married and even lived off of a military commission, but her husband predeceased her and she returned to the sea. Read fell into a life of piracy when a ship she worked on in the West Indies was attacked by pirates and she was given the option to join them or to be killed. She joined Rackham and Bonny around 1720.
<br />
<br />In October 1720, Rackham's crew was taken by surprise, arrested, and brought to trial in Jamaica. Read and Bonny both escaped execution by revealing they were pregnant while in prison. Read died in prison, and there is some indication that childbirth may have been the cause. At the same time, Anne Bonny disappears from the record--there is no indication she was released from prison, and there is no indication she was executed. There are many theories surrounding the fate of Anne Bonny--some think her well-connected father may have had something to do with her disappearance, and some indicate that she lived a long life in South Carolina. None of these theories can be entirely proven.
<br />
<br /><strong>What About the Book?</strong>
<br />
<br /><strong>Note:</strong> A few details of the story are revealed in the following critique. I promise that none of them have a particularly strong bearing on the main plot of the novel, but, if you want to read this for yourself and don't want to spoil a single thing, be forewarned.
<br />
<br />This novel was an enjoyable, but completely unchallenging to the reader. The story was a little too tight and convenient, and none of the characters were particularly well developed. However, the story is interesting, and I think this is a pretty quick read overall.
<br />
<br />Anne Bonny's story does wrap up a few details of her life into the novel, but there are others that are entirely left out. Other details are a little difficult to believe. For example, Anne's father leaves the family and moves to South Carolina, and eventually Anne and her mother follow him there. Unfortunately, it turns out that the are stuck on a ship contracted to transfer slaves, and the crew, in a drunken rampage, actually kills her mother. None of this makes sense. Under no circumstances would two women unaccompanied by any male chaperones have boarded a ship like this in the 18th century. This odd trend continues when Anne, disowned by her father after meeting him in South Carolina, manages to steal a bunch of silver and pay for her own passage to the West Indies with it. In this case, it would have served the author, and the plot, much better if the factual details of her life guided her to the Indies. The inclusion of her husband would have really added another dimension to the story that it is seriously lacking.
<br />
<br />Mary Read's character is endlessly baffling. The crew meet her under completely unrealistic circumstances that are never fully explained. There comes a point when Mary Read reveals that she is a woman, and it doesn't seem to make a difference at all. One feels that it isn't probable that she is even female because this has no bearing on how she is treated, and there isn't even any surprise.
<br />
<br />Consistency continues to be a problem in many different ways in the novel. The author goes into great detail about Anne and her love of the sea and adventure and living the life of a man, but, at one point, the reader finds her living on an island with Rackham on what must have been a plantation of some kind. This is completely inconsistent with the character that the author developed for the reader, and it creates a completely unnecessary pause in what would have been a much more interesting story without it. This is one instance, of many, where history--even embellished history--was far more interesting than what the author was able to imagine.
<br />
<br />Overall, though, the story is interesting and the reader is encouraged to continue. Anne life is a fascinating one, even with details left out or modified. Probably the best part is the section focusing on her life at sea, which comprises the majority of the novel. The story benefits from the fact that at any time, anything can happen, and that is a great advantage. It is the details that set this scenario up and provide a conclusion that are less captivating.
<br />
<br /><strong>Rating:</strong> A 5, but a strong 5. I enjoyed reading it and went through it quickly. Although I was a bit disappointed in a few aspects of it, it is a fun story, and if you're looking for something enjoyable but not too serious or shocking, this may be the book for you.
<br /><strong>Buy It or Borrow It:</strong> I'd say borrow it, but with such a small price tag on Amazon, you couldn't really go wrong. A few days overdue, and you'd pay the $2.00 to the library anyway.
<br />
<br /><strong>Images:</strong>
<br />
<br />An illustration from the Dutch version of Charles Johnson's <em>A General History of the Pyrates</em> published in 1725. This is not thought to be a genuine likeness of either of the women portrayed.pilgrimchickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13808106043964544413noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3012721751896752923.post-77936658385270901762011-08-11T19:42:00.006-04:002011-08-11T21:48:29.878-04:00Catherine Howard<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhN7yYEawF79pzW5DrpnszuYU7W2PSnw9LmPZpdrP1BAJ2ds9XaJE6_ySucsw_26pnMEuNzwXmAIthk1qtdEBrpFD_fl6rCNPXfMZeYo_a6FRyHbM4W3Z0mRmXxhpz0vSbZRSiXOanppg/s1600/Catherine+Howard.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 100px; height: 160px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhN7yYEawF79pzW5DrpnszuYU7W2PSnw9LmPZpdrP1BAJ2ds9XaJE6_ySucsw_26pnMEuNzwXmAIthk1qtdEBrpFD_fl6rCNPXfMZeYo_a6FRyHbM4W3Z0mRmXxhpz0vSbZRSiXOanppg/s320/Catherine+Howard.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5639748950482742210" /></a>
<br />
<br /><strong>Author:</strong> Lacey Baldwin Smith
<br /><strong>Publication Date:</strong> First published in 1961; newest edition is 2010
<br /><strong>Cost:</strong> A handful of new books are left on Amazon at $14.96, but used ones are also available there for around $10.00. There is no Kindle edition
<br /><strong>Where Did I Hear About It:</strong> I found this in a Waterstones in London. Since I have never seen this in a US bookstore, I purchased it (couldn't go wrong for 9.99 GBP).
<br />
<br /><strong>The Backstory</strong>
<br />
<br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCIRmLz4gRq7p9hJKSIMujS2k6bTm0sTYwlf0FUIOsRmQsTXlJ1TXcErV8LsGJ9ZWGumfRUiGhZRsszBKmUlwqcO-rZGhZPP-GgwXo7mP1_NFd-ZBfurtVVN7XqGdMUEZAwf7lAlj5BQ/s1600/CHoward1.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 220px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCIRmLz4gRq7p9hJKSIMujS2k6bTm0sTYwlf0FUIOsRmQsTXlJ1TXcErV8LsGJ9ZWGumfRUiGhZRsszBKmUlwqcO-rZGhZPP-GgwXo7mP1_NFd-ZBfurtVVN7XqGdMUEZAwf7lAlj5BQ/s320/CHoward1.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5639750599668642434" /></a> Catherine Howard is best known as Henry VIII's fifth wife and, unfortunately, nothing more. Catherine wasn't a particularly notable character in the context of her family or her family's relationship to the King. She counted the very powerful Duke of Norfolk as her uncle, as Anne Boleyn had before her. In many ways, Catherine and Anne were alike far beyond their having blossomed on the same family tree (albeit on branches rather far apart). Both of them came from families that were connected, loosely, to the higher-level peers in the realm. Both of them truly needed to find more wealthy, more well-established partners if they were ever to live in a state of financial stability. If there is a difference, it is that Anne was a few steps above Catherine on the scale of Tudor era wealth and connections. Anne's family were peers with a connection to the royal family, although they could count tradespeople and merchants in their bloodline as well, and they had the means to send Anne to the Continent to be educated in two foreign courts before she made an appearance on the English scene. Catherine was the daughter of a minor peer with very little influence, even less money, and a large family to feed.
<br />
<br />No one actually knows when Catherine was born, although the latest date of 1527 is extremely unlikely as she would have only been around 13 years old when Henry was serious about marrying her. The year 1525 seems to be the latest possible date, based on descriptions of her, that she could have possibly been born. Possibly because of her father's small means and large family, Catherine joined the household of her step-grandmother, the Dowager Duchess of Norfolk (step-mother of the then Duke of Norfolk) where she was raised with a number of other young peers from minor families like her own. Catherine had two notable "flirtations" while in the Duchess's household--Henry Mannox, her music teacher, and Francis Dereham, a young man who had a position there. Unfortunately, these seemingly innocent adolescent relationships would come back to haunt Catherine later.
<br />
<br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEha3jaB9UN4NBs8yfJLJm59AT7d57wjfW84FXrNTq5qeZ56qHaVI6KekFUvxnzpTr06O2tLzU1oawmBcRB1mXH2iatIBTQt-BhgGYMPWGp-7dz52B9R0AVxY-ziEySwJ6Hbi_zYrGowVQ/s1600/Henry8older.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 250px; height: 300px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEha3jaB9UN4NBs8yfJLJm59AT7d57wjfW84FXrNTq5qeZ56qHaVI6KekFUvxnzpTr06O2tLzU1oawmBcRB1mXH2iatIBTQt-BhgGYMPWGp-7dz52B9R0AVxY-ziEySwJ6Hbi_zYrGowVQ/s320/Henry8older.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5639754584182584674" /></a>In January 1540, an aging Henry VIII wed for the fourth time to Anne of Cleves, and clearly from the beginning, this was not a match that would last long. Although Anne was at least somewhat unaware, Henry, who was used to at least convincing himself he was attracted to and in love with his mates, was not at all pleased by Anne. However, for a man well-known to be ruthless and selfish, he didn't blame Anne. Six months later, he had the marriage annulled, but he granted Anne a generous settlement and continued to foster a positive, if platonic, relationship with her. During Anne's brief tenure as Queen Consort, the Duke of Norfolk gained Catherine Howard a position in Anne's household as one of her ladies in waiting. It is thought that during this time, Henry met and grew infatuated with Catherine, showering her with the same deluge of gifts that were placed before Jane Seymour and Anne Boleyn. There were rumors that Catherine was pregnant by the time Henry ended his marriage to Anne of Cleves, so Henry married Catherine, quietly and hastily, about three weeks later.
<br />
<br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiyF3feFmOYCyuoQoB3hRAiTBBaoKHvxfflNj7Pyv48lLklsnKujOtEPmCK-tj-gjqdT1Um-NrlcRDx6FH2bTMwpNQsJU_PxRED0xu-QQDYD1F1wes_16QypISY2OATll4RKj1wJsJyaw/s1600/CHoward2.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 300px; height: 298px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiyF3feFmOYCyuoQoB3hRAiTBBaoKHvxfflNj7Pyv48lLklsnKujOtEPmCK-tj-gjqdT1Um-NrlcRDx6FH2bTMwpNQsJU_PxRED0xu-QQDYD1F1wes_16QypISY2OATll4RKj1wJsJyaw/s320/CHoward2.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5639758029528096930" /></a>Henry's "rose without a thorn" was only queen for a fleeting year and a half. At first, Henry's ardor continued unabated. Catherine was fun and full of life, if not as educated as her predecessors. What possessed Catherine to indiscretion is a mystery to this day, but it is clear that she harbored some intention (at the very least) to begin a romantic relationship with Thomas Culpepper, a servant in the king's household. She also hired the same Francis Dereham she was previously involved with to work in her own household. Allegations of Catherine's indiscreet behavior, primarily in the Duchess's house, was brought to the Archbishop of Canterbury, who brought it to Henry. Henry didn't believe it at first, but confessions from Culpepper and Dereham and a letter written to Culpepper by Catherine sealed her fate. Culpepper and Dereham were executed in December 1541. Catherine would end her life on the scaffold in February 1542, and Henry would never quite be the same again.
<br />
<br /><strong>What About the Book?</strong>
<br />
<br />This is one of the only biographical accounts of Catherine Howard out there for readers who may be interested in examining the short-lived queen outside of the many novels that have been written about her, especially in the recent past. There is another biography by Joanna Denny available, but, since I did not have a very positive opinion about her biography of Anne Boleyn, I am very tentative to read it.
<br />
<br />This book proves why there aren't more accounts of Catherine Howard's life. The available resources are so few and far between and no new leads have ever emerged to sharpen the fuzzy edges of Catherine's life and character. The majority of the details of Catherine's life only become clear when she and her suspected accomplices were examined by the authorities when Catherine was accused of adultery. Catherine's date of birth has never definitively been known, and neither have the reasons why she was moved in the Dowager Duchess of Norfolk's household. This is mainly because Catherine would have led a pretty unnotable life if she hadn't caught Henry's eye at just the right time. She was never particularly highly educated. In all probability, one of what would have inevitably become a string of available suitors would have succeeded in gaining her hand in marriage at some later point. Catherine is probably the greatest beneficiary and, subsequently victim, of circumstance of any of Henry VIII's wives.
<br />
<br />The lack of information is what truly plagues this book. Smith is very enlightening when it comes to Catherine's family lineage, including her own immediate family. Unfortunately, at least one very lengthy chapter, focusing on London and the Court, could have been entirely done away with without a loss to the book's subject, but I assume this was added to at least get 200 pages into the text.
<br />
<br />Smith's work also suffers from a lack of interesting commentary and assessment. It is very much a report, and a report that gives too much of what we already know and not enough of what we can only imagine. If she examined sources, she doesn't evaluate them. As a result, there is nothing new, and one can only wonder what may have been missed in the process. David Starkey does offer a fair amount of assessment and commentary about Catherine Howard in his (unfortunately short) section about her in his <em>Six Wives</em>, and I feel that is superior to this biography with Catherine as its only subject.
<br />
<br /><strong>Rating:</strong> A 5. If this is the first book you have read that mentions Catherine, this is as good a start as any, but if you've read other accounts of her by other authors, you'll find this account seriously lacking.
<br /><strong>Buy It or Borrow It:</strong> Sadly, I am not sure this is widely available to borrow in the US. I am sure it is available in most libraries in the UK, and it may be worth a read if borrowing is an option for you. If your only option is to buy it, skip this in favor of Starkey's <em>Six Wives</em>.
<br />
<br /><strong>Images:</strong>
<br />
<br />An unconfirmed, but often referenced, possible likeness of Catherine Howard, Hans Holbein the Younger, 1540-1541
<br />
<br />Henry VIII, Hans Holbein the Younger, 1540
<br />
<br />An unconfirmed possible likeness of Catherine Howard, probably the most popular, Hans Holbein the Younger, 1541pilgrimchickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13808106043964544413noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3012721751896752923.post-74357620739539430622011-05-02T22:06:00.003-04:002011-05-02T22:38:40.636-04:00Mary Tudor: Princess, Bastard, Queen<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRCrNpA-DvPIsAx6-rfEXsky8KoEeOb9FLb7B0Kh_24Neh1JTZ1xl6kC6upSGIcUPyx0ptujhLNXEeGET6KoJRwSRyPnR3A4Xqq7X_Bvm18aXW7sPMG3nalMInucMNS40dGV2vfTmM6w/s1600/MTWhitelock.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRCrNpA-DvPIsAx6-rfEXsky8KoEeOb9FLb7B0Kh_24Neh1JTZ1xl6kC6upSGIcUPyx0ptujhLNXEeGET6KoJRwSRyPnR3A4Xqq7X_Bvm18aXW7sPMG3nalMInucMNS40dGV2vfTmM6w/s320/MTWhitelock.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5602305842516689570" /></a><br /><br /><strong>Author:</strong> Anna Whitelock<br /><strong>Publication Date:</strong> 2009<br /><strong>Cost:</strong> Hardcover is listed at $28.00, but you can find a paperback for under $5.00 on Amazon if you look under <em>Mary Tudor: England's First Queen</em>. The Kindle edition is available for $13.99, but it is listed under the <em>Mary Tudor: Princess, Bastard, Queen</em> title.<br /><strong>Where Did I Hear About It:</strong> I found this with the newest books at the local library.<br /><br /><strong>The Backstory:</strong><br /><br />I'll save myself from repeating Mary Tudor's story--see my review of Linda Porter's book, <a href="http://voraciousmindbooks.blogspot.com/2010/05/first-queen-of-england-myth-of-bloody.html"><em>The First Queen of England: The Myth of Bloody Mary</em></a>. To clarify, the Mary Tudor in question is Henry VIII's daughter by Katherine of Aragon (his first wife), not to be confused with Henry VIII's sister, Mary, who married Charles Brandon, the Duke of Suffolk.<br /><br /><strong>What About the Book?</strong><br /><br />At the end of the biography, in the "Acknowledgements" section, the author writes, "This was the book I always wanted to write." Although an appreciated expression of sentimental attachment to the subject, the reader gets no such impression from the emotionless writing, the short chapters, and the complete lack of theory and historical observation. Ms. Whitelock tells Mary's story, but unfortunately, for those of us interested in learning more from a new historian's take on an old subject, this is not the right read.<br /><br />One of the "Achilles Heels" of this book is how short it is. Granted, the meat of the text is about 350 pages long--not short by any stretch of the imagination. However, the chapters are often 3 to 5 pages long, and they give the impression that she was trying to capture a "snapshot" in time with each episode without actually weaving that technique into the text. I have never read a book--even a novel--with such short chapters, and I wonder what the reader can expect to get out of such brief treatment of big events and mysteries in Mary's life. One gets the feeling that the author was really after a mass-market appeal for her book, but it cost her dearly. She vastly underestimated her readership if she thought a 3 page chapter on Mary's legacy is all that the modern reader of history wants out of her work.<br /><br />Because chapters are short, the insight of the historian is nearly impossible to find. Readers will learn very little about who Mary was. Readers will also miss out on many of the attention-grabbing, fascinating details surrounding the most significant moments in Mary's life and reign--such as why Lady Jane Grey was executed or what her relationship with her father was truly like or what kind of tension must have existed between Mary and those among her councillors who supported Jane over her right to rule. Ms. Whitelock offers very few interpretations of the history she clearly knows well--she uses excellent sources and seems to know where to look to cite the different events in Mary's life. With every move from one chapter to another, though, the reader will feel that something is missing, and that is Ms. Whitelock's insight.<br /><br />The beginning of the book suffers in particular because very little of it is actually about Mary herself. One gets the impression that Ms. Whitelock was more interested in covering the breakdown of Henry VIII's and Katherine's marriage than she was interested in the subject of her biography. Several chapters are devoted to this, and the steps Henry took toward divorce were certainly significant for Mary, but Mary is no more than a shadow or a footnote in this part of the book. Here, again, Ms. Whitelock demonstrates that she does not know her readers very well at all--most who read her book will be fairly well-versed, or at least familiar, with the history of Henry VIII, Katherine of Aragon, and Anne Boleyn. It would have been much more to the point to have focused on Mary far more fully in this part of the biography. <br /><br />This is a very quick read given how short the chapters are, and it is a fairly unfullfilling one. Yes, you'll get the story of Mary's life, but you'll only get the bare bones of it all. Most of us who pick up biographies like this one are looking for the meat. Unfortunately, you'll have a hard time finding it here.<br /><br /><strong>Rating:</strong> I'm going to give it a 4 because I would have been just as well off not reading it at all.<br /><strong>Buy It or Borrow It:</strong> Neither. Read Linda Porter's book. It is a much more full, real telling of Mary's story. It is clear that Porter really likes Mary, and she doesn't hide her bias, but she is definitely connected to Mary Tudor's story and composed a much better read than this one. If this is what Anna Whitelock could come up with, she should have left Linda Porter to it and moved on to something else.pilgrimchickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13808106043964544413noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3012721751896752923.post-39727946859212712592011-03-04T21:10:00.006-05:002011-03-04T22:55:34.771-05:00Catherine of Aragon: The Spanish Queen of Henry VIII<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFaBRfx-5-uWz6ntScUCMeouIFoTln9peqaQr04JHVQdzoWRcx9jW9TgLSwJYvXmdgDUQpMP3DuV3nidYZmra9BE1sZfyqJjUJH6ugaxloygeJYxrOjIzIuygCTxHwa8JtXnQqzi-FhA/s1600/CatherineofAragonBiography.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 188px; height: 287px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFaBRfx-5-uWz6ntScUCMeouIFoTln9peqaQr04JHVQdzoWRcx9jW9TgLSwJYvXmdgDUQpMP3DuV3nidYZmra9BE1sZfyqJjUJH6ugaxloygeJYxrOjIzIuygCTxHwa8JtXnQqzi-FhA/s320/CatherineofAragonBiography.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5580414149024137634" /></a><br /><br /><strong>Author:</strong> Giles Tremlett<br /><strong>Publication Date:</strong> 2010<br /><strong>Cost:</strong> The list price is officially $28.00, but it's available on Amazon for $18.48. It is not currently available as either a paperback or a Kindle edition.<br /><strong>Where Did I Hear About It:</strong> I found this in the library when I was going through the newest biographies.<br /><br /><strong>The Backstory:</strong><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAXP0My1Z3TTggwn5ji13YnjF8Wi4RyEwaXhSkNbvnxrYOMf2v5vBB1JybiPK-7785HzPgw4GPk_ctKROC_jqoTD4wPW7ceJMVwcb8bBJ_Y7mELa422eCqqJWF6duqt70sKqwO_pib0Q/s1600/CatherineofAragonyoung.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 213px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAXP0My1Z3TTggwn5ji13YnjF8Wi4RyEwaXhSkNbvnxrYOMf2v5vBB1JybiPK-7785HzPgw4GPk_ctKROC_jqoTD4wPW7ceJMVwcb8bBJ_Y7mELa422eCqqJWF6duqt70sKqwO_pib0Q/s320/CatherineofAragonyoung.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5580415259832997890" /></a> Poor Catherine. The tragedy of Catherine's story is often played up in movies, television dramas, novels, and biographies. Catherine of Aragon was Henry VIII's first wife, and after nearly 20 years of marriage Henry mercilessly cast her aside for the company of another woman. Catherine refused to submit to Henry's wishes under such scandalous circumstances. She was sent to successively more and more distant houses, her daughter Mary was separated from her, and she was kept nearly under lock and key at the time of her death in 1536. Despite bullying by many of Henry's chief advisers, she steadfastly held on to the identity Henry had previously bestowed upon her--queen of England and Henry's only legitimate wife.<br /><br />Catherine was the youngest child of Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile--joint monarchs of what is most of Spain today. She was born in 1485 famously while her parents were on campaign against the Moors. Her childhood in Spain was a nomadic one, her family wandering between various forts and castles. By the time Catherine was three years old, she was betrothed to Arthur, the eldest son of Henry VII of England.<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5StolV0t5JQKDfEJObhMvzd6aNeeWnjEaPUeIjqvnFdsdPJOCuMxwK93yseqfkoqXQNTu8-sM3eiJdAA0BAYS_cX-xdP4cafPpPioVQcKczcGcQjYYawmVljbADC3YiU4mY6wcFHBvw/s1600/ArthurTudor.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 206px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5StolV0t5JQKDfEJObhMvzd6aNeeWnjEaPUeIjqvnFdsdPJOCuMxwK93yseqfkoqXQNTu8-sM3eiJdAA0BAYS_cX-xdP4cafPpPioVQcKczcGcQjYYawmVljbADC3YiU4mY6wcFHBvw/s320/ArthurTudor.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5580419342380216706" /></a> Both Catherine's parents and Henry VII had something to gain from this alliance--their common enemy was France, and the union of England and Spain would lock France between two potentially hostile nations, curbing France's ambitions in English and Spanish territories. There was no formal time set for Catherine's delivery to England, but preparations were underway when she was between 14 and 15 years old. After a safe delivery to England in 1501, she was married to Arthur on November 14. Henry VII was pleased with his new daughter-in-law, and Arthur and Catherine were sent to Ludlow Castle in Wales, the traditional governing seat of the Prince of Wales.<br /><br />Tragedy struck on April 2, 1502; Arthur died. What would become of Catherine? In order to retain the portion of her dowry already delivered, Henry VII was determined to keep her in England as a prospective bride for his second son and new heir, Henry. However, Catherine's position and future prospects remained in limbo for the rest of Henry VII's life. For seven years, Catherine relied upon either her own plate and jewelry or what sporadically granted funds Henry VII gave her to pay for her household. On June 11, 1509, the new young king, Henry, rescued Catherine, the damsel in distress, and married her quietly. Catherine's future finally seemed secure.<br /><br />Nearly 20 years later, enter Anne Boleyn. Whether she was interested in replacing Catherine by Henry's side from the beginning or gradually worked up to that goal is a mystery, but what is clear is that Henry wanted Anne and devised a way to make her his. Henry was a very bright man, and when he applied himself, he could reason out even the most challenging of his studies. Always interested in the Bible, Henry believed he could use his extensive knowledge of scripture to his advantage. Didn't the Bible expressly state that a man should not marry his brother's wife? Isn't that exactly what Henry had done when marrying Catherine? Henry envisioned a quick assessment and decision in his favor on this seemingly indisputable point.<br /><br />He couldn't have imagined anything farther from the truth.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHuy7QhZ2vodYAWv9MFwVRq6IHQgzUmh25hCO6X4givpUC5EMtbpdxaJaOog9HxG3xoAMVlKI3UU968080jBEAYNKGZFHw9M-ONDhPK3QoqBrdfyuRO0QTdG4qIvEOhBeYw3IMOPwuAA/s1600/CatherineofAragonolder.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 244px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHuy7QhZ2vodYAWv9MFwVRq6IHQgzUmh25hCO6X4givpUC5EMtbpdxaJaOog9HxG3xoAMVlKI3UU968080jBEAYNKGZFHw9M-ONDhPK3QoqBrdfyuRO0QTdG4qIvEOhBeYw3IMOPwuAA/s320/CatherineofAragonolder.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5580424391100800018" /></a> Catherine knew who she was. She never forgot it. And she made sure Henry didn't, either. Catherine was the daughter of the most powerful pair of Spanish monarchs in the entire history of the fragmented nation. She was also the aunt of (arguably) the most powerful ruler on the Continent, Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor. Catherine had turned a blind eye to Henry's various dalliances with ladies of the court--her mother had filled a similar role. However, it was entirely another thing to be cast aside for the daughter of a minor English noble family simply because Henry was infatuated with her. From Catherine's point of view, it didn't matter what Henry wanted--she was his wife, whether he was happy about that or not. On the other hand, from Henry's perspective, what Henry wanted was all that mattered. Henry wanted Anne, and he may not have been aware of the lengths he had to go to get her, but he certainly went the distance.<br /><br />Catherine refused to be intimidated. Her marriage was put on trial in England, and, save one initial appearance, she refused to submit to the court's authority. The central question was whether she had been Arthur's wife in the fullest sense of the term. Catherine asserted, over and over, that Arthur had left her a virgin. Henry did the best he could to provide evidence to the contrary. Tired of waiting for the Catholic Church to decide, Henry took successful steps to place himself as head of the English church and banished Catherine to several houses gradually more and more distant from London. Catherine refused to give in, and Henry was hesitant to exact vengeance on her through more than the reduction of her household and her being constantly watched. <br /><br />On January 7, 1536, Catherine died. She knew mortality was creeping upon her and called for a confessor and extreme unction a day in advance. An autopsy after her death revealed a blackened heart with an additional mass attached to it--a secondary melanotic sarcoma was probably the cause, although poison was assumed at the time. She was buried at Peterborough Abbey the same month. Although Henry and Anne received the news of Catherine's death joyfully, by the late spring, Anne was accused of adultery and executed only 19 weeks later.<br /><br />Henry VIII may be famous for his six wives, but Catherine of Aragon lasted the longest by leaps and bounds. The collective duration of Henry's subsequent five marriages barely make up half of his time married to Catherine. Even Thomas Cromwell, the shady confidante and later chancellor, respected her resolve. Perhaps this is what kept her from the executions suffered by two of Henry's later wives and countless others besides? One will never know, but what is true is that Catherine may have been Henry's most worthy, and most formidable, opponent.<br /><br /><strong>What About the Book?</strong><br /><br />Giles Tremlett has composed a very modern, and very readable, biography of Catherine of Aragon. The story is compelling, which even the best biographies rarely are, and he truly attempts to capture the many significant events of Catherine's life from her perspective. Tremlett begins each chapter with an episode--a date and a place--and he uses this to engage the reader, which is a very effective technique. However, this biography is "history lite"--Tremlett goes into minimal detail about Catherine and her life, and this is reflected by the very sparse chapter notes at the end of the book. He also insinuates that his exploration of the Spanish archives on this topic revealed far more than it apparently did. <br /><br />Tremlett does deliver a biography of Catherine that gives an overview of her life. He includes a fairly descriptive examination of Catherine's life in Spain before she left to marry Arthur. The characters of Catherine's parents become more defined under his lens. He also spends a good deal of time discussing Catherine's life in England after Arthur's death, and this period of her life is often glossed over as an intermission between Catherine's two marriages. The third main focus of the biography is Henry's decision to seek an annulment and marry Anne Boleyn, and this is the best example of his telling the story from Catherine's distinct point of view. Although it is tempting to place Catherine in the larger, imagination-exciting story of Anne Boleyn, Tremlett avoids this temptation completely, which is very admirable.<br /><br />The main issue is that Tremlett is not a historian. Tremlett may know a good story when he sees one--and Catherine's IS a good story--but he is not the well-versed researcher, and this shows through. His dates and events at the heading of each chapter are meant to grab the reader, and they do, but the chapters are short and lack in-depth analysis. He also examined the Spanish archives for information about Catherine, and although he claims this was particularly enlightening, an examination of the biography reveals something different--this research naturally features prominently at the beginning of the biography, but, when it comes to exploring the extend of Catherine's relationship with Arthur, he has to admit that the depositions acquired from Catherine's Spanish retinue have been lost.<br /><br />Tremlett's ideas also lack development. He avoids passing judgement on Catherine's relationship with Arthur, and only poses the often suggested theory that Catherine was willing to lie when she had to, so it is possible that she did consummate her first marriage. However, he touches upon, and then entirely misses, two important points. First, it was nearly completely irrelevant whether or not Catherine consummated her relationship with Arthur--there were papal dispensations legitimizing her marriage to Henry and Henry fabricated the whole argument because he was going to find a way to end his marriage to Catherine no matter what the case. Second, because Henry created this argument to release him from Catherine, it wasn't as nearly as important as historians assume that he didn't have a male heir by Catherine. What mattered was Anne--a male heir would be great, and perhaps became increasingly more significant over time, but it wasn't the main purpose. Tremlett touches upon these premises, and had they formed the basis of a thesis for his book, this would have been a much stronger biography.<br /><br /><strong>Rating:</strong> A 7, but a solid 7.<br /><strong>Buy It or Borrow It:</strong> Borrow it if you can. At this point, the hardcover really isn't worth the cost. The paperback may be depending upon the price when it comes out. Although this is an interesting read, this book is not going to become a reference book--you'll have to rely upon Mattingly's biography of Catherine or Starkey's work for that.<br /><br /><strong>Images:</strong><br /><br />Catherine of Aragon by Juan de Flandes c. 1497.<br /><br />Arthur Tudor, a later copy of the only known contemporary portrait c. 1500-1501.<br /><br />Catherine of Aragon by Lucas Horenboutpilgrimchickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13808106043964544413noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3012721751896752923.post-92832525832234902011-02-21T11:54:00.007-05:002011-02-21T13:03:58.720-05:00Kate Middleton: Oldest Royal English Bride Ever?Recently, I came across <a href="http://shine.yahoo.com/event/the-thread/5-things-you-dont-know-about-kate-middleton-2451935/">this article</a> promising to deliver five facts about soon-to-be royal bride, Kate Middleton. The video interview and the text on this site declares that <strong>Kate Middleton will be the oldest royal bride ever at age 29</strong>. <br /><br />Hmmm...this sounded fishy to me.<br /><br />What defines a "royal bride" is not specifically stated. Therefore, I created my own search parameters to try and ascertain whether or not this is true. I examined the following:<br /><br />**The period from William the Conqueror (1066) to Elizabeth Tudor (1558)<br /><br />**The age at marriage of each royal bride in the direct line of succession during this period<br /><br />**In the case of a disputed year of birth, I chose the year that most scholars today agree upon.<br /><br />Here is what I found:<br /><br /><strong>Royal Brides (Possibly) Older than Kate Middleton</strong><br /><br />Eleanor of Aquitaine<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvmb5bI99zNE-HetcdGXfE2f9pXUQ4mwn1eP8VtsvllMj03zY7th7DUBaTZ0f48zGDC1GerbYDD0zMfD0jeHOGf_cpjOSGDWTPFz-UrkHJzFvtZtrRr1da1ooEi2Uf8MAWreF8Tn2CUg/s1600/EleanorofAquitaine.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 222px; height: 259px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvmb5bI99zNE-HetcdGXfE2f9pXUQ4mwn1eP8VtsvllMj03zY7th7DUBaTZ0f48zGDC1GerbYDD0zMfD0jeHOGf_cpjOSGDWTPFz-UrkHJzFvtZtrRr1da1ooEi2Uf8MAWreF8Tn2CUg/s320/EleanorofAquitaine.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5576201130370990930" /></a>Eleanor's exact year of birth is uncertain. Her parents married in 1121, and scholars dispute whether her birth year was 1122 or 1124. The year 1122 has been more widely accepted because she was noted to be over 80 at her death in 1204, because contemporary chroniclers actually undershot her age by two years listing her birth date as 1120, and because the Aquitainian lords swore fealty to her on her fourteenth birthday in 1136. What is known for certain is that she was married to Henry II of England in 1152. This would have made her (possibly) 30 years old.<br /><br />Joan of Navarre<br /><br />Joan was the second wife of Henry IV of England (reign 1399-1413). Henry was first married to Mary de Bohun, but she died five years before he became king. Henry IV is credited with the overthrow of Richard II in 1399. He married Joan of Navarre in 1403. Based on the respective birth years of her children by her first marriage, Joan was probably born in 1370. This would have made her 33 when she married Henry. Although 1370 is a disputed birth year, her previous marriage to John V, Duke of Brittany in 1386 would have made her 16. The year 1370 would have to be nearly 4 years off to line up Joan's age with Kate Middleton. This is a pretty big spread--not unheard-of, but it is unlikely. In addition, that doesn't even take into account that she could have been older than 16 by a few years when she first married. <br /><br />Anne Boleyn<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhg2_U_OAE4XdNg2loBVABBp3x7pBReHNVX2PVP8WhzBEd73DsDQ_Qf5OBu5wZVOy4um-PFvqoOS6IGXDJJseh4qBYQyHmXSeG8HRtKAjZ5dizn0QlOpLf0peVnNjmIZKWqhH_wM8_QAg/s1600/AnneBoleyn.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 246px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhg2_U_OAE4XdNg2loBVABBp3x7pBReHNVX2PVP8WhzBEd73DsDQ_Qf5OBu5wZVOy4um-PFvqoOS6IGXDJJseh4qBYQyHmXSeG8HRtKAjZ5dizn0QlOpLf0peVnNjmIZKWqhH_wM8_QAg/s320/AnneBoleyn.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5576202236097097234" /></a>There are two birth years for Anne--1501 and 1507. The most recent scholarship has tended to agree upon the earlier date. The main evidence is a letter Anne wrote and sent to her father from court in Belgium. The letter is dated between 1513 and 1514, and scholars strongly feel that the handwriting suggests an older girl at least in her teen years as author rather than a 6-7 year old child. If we accept 1501 as her birth year, when she married Henry VIII in 1533, she would have been 32 years old.<br /><br />Katherine Parr<br /><br />Although unknown, most recent scholarship points to a birth year of 1512 for Henry VIII's last queen. Given their marriage in 1543, she would have been 31 years old.<br /><br /><strong>The Royal Bride OLDER Than Kate Middleton Is:</strong><br /><br />Mary Tudor (Mary I of England)<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7RAxwUtPzWHck9ENLEueOmJGgIWBhYTKEd5ptjtl5PVgtBQPyXOijZfQyuhKwRpb9p7ouGAp6eIidAZcjEDiPsE27qkr19jy8fC0djj5ZVLdG1BCYjAqRSt3psibcMha4BEKtoopkzw/s1600/MaryTudor.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 250px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7RAxwUtPzWHck9ENLEueOmJGgIWBhYTKEd5ptjtl5PVgtBQPyXOijZfQyuhKwRpb9p7ouGAp6eIidAZcjEDiPsE27qkr19jy8fC0djj5ZVLdG1BCYjAqRSt3psibcMha4BEKtoopkzw/s320/MaryTudor.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5576202637982514370" /></a>Unless the author of this piece of journalism cut out all of the female monarchs in English history wholesale, the claim that Kate Middleton is the oldest royal bride ever comes crashing irrevocably down when we consider the case of Mary Tudor, Henry VIII's oldest living daughter.<br /><br />Mary I was the daughter of Henry VIII's first wife, Katherine of Aragon. She was born in 1516, and by all accounts, she had a very difficult life. She was bounced around on the royal marriage market throughout her early life. Candidates included Charles V the Holy Roman Emperor, King Francis I of France, and two of King Francis' sons. Not much came of any of this, in part because she was declared illegitimate and tossed out of the line of succession for most of her adult life. After her younger brother, Edward VI, died in 1553 and Lady Jane Grey's administration was overthrown, Mary I became Queen of England.<br /><br />All that was left for Mary was to choose a husband. She picked Philip II of Spain, eleven years her junior. Mary married Philip in England at Winchester Cathedral in 1554.<br /><br />Sorry, Kate, <strong>Mary I was 38 years, 6 months and 7 days old when she first married.</strong> This undoubtedly makes her the oldest royal English bride in this period with an absolutely certain birth date and year.pilgrimchickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13808106043964544413noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3012721751896752923.post-71887351069366142012011-02-07T19:57:00.007-05:002011-02-07T21:37:55.438-05:00The Tudors Fact Check: Who is Cardinal Reginald Pole<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaOQ6W-djqZFeX_ywplH5JWOuDk58zeVFP8PVVudPmBDqGokk2q_t56FTp2jPUPHhj77spWvD8cGlpk-XsfZ9Q7aagDSN5_DlUJ042fev87UMzSFCtEjB65qVVMl9AbupqV6ImRNEf7Q/s1600/CardinalPole.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 240px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaOQ6W-djqZFeX_ywplH5JWOuDk58zeVFP8PVVudPmBDqGokk2q_t56FTp2jPUPHhj77spWvD8cGlpk-XsfZ9Q7aagDSN5_DlUJ042fev87UMzSFCtEjB65qVVMl9AbupqV6ImRNEf7Q/s320/CardinalPole.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5571116960828858594" /></a> In season 3 of <em>The Tudors</em>, Henry VIII is beset by plots and conflict both within and outside England. One of the main protagonists is Cardinal Reginald Pole. Cardinal Pole is abroad working against Henry because he, a staunch Catholic, is opposed the religious reforms being carried out in England by Henry and Thomas Cromwell. Cardinal Pole publishes and circulates a treatise condemning Henry, and this piques Henry's already risen suspicions. Henry sends Sir Francis Bryan to find Pole and kill him, but Cardinal Pole is supported by the other, Catholic monarchs on the continent and manages to escape every time Bryan begins to close in on him. To strike at him, Henry commits his family to the Tower of London, and they are all later executed.<br /><br />Why is Cardinal Pole so dangerous? At the beginning of the season, he claims that he is a member of the House of Plantagenet, a ruling dynasty in England ousted by Henry VIII's father.<br /><br />So, who the heck is Cardinal Pole, and where does his claim to the throne come from?<br /><br /><strong>Who are the "Plantagenets" and why are they important?</strong><br /><br />Answering this question is a good place to start. Lots of people have probably heard the word "Plantagenet" before, but not everyone knows exactly WHO is a Plantagenet. <br /><br />"Plantagenet" refers to the official ruling dynasty in England between 1154 and 1485. The first Plantagenet king of England was Henry II. <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvl33nYgjHFAjz4KipD9_0GwP8z5ZoPQEjIQSxxKf2Fm2-tjhPPWYWPlEVY2ijTSTpH66C84GbTvsa9xLtEskj7TDDxlUm4DKrLqo0zvs8-mBEOm83ppPJaGJpaU6EexUWPt2KTyE_rQ/s1600/GeoffreyofAnjou.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 167px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvl33nYgjHFAjz4KipD9_0GwP8z5ZoPQEjIQSxxKf2Fm2-tjhPPWYWPlEVY2ijTSTpH66C84GbTvsa9xLtEskj7TDDxlUm4DKrLqo0zvs8-mBEOm83ppPJaGJpaU6EexUWPt2KTyE_rQ/s320/GeoffreyofAnjou.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5571123649815874658" /></a> Henry's mother, Matilda, was involved in a long, armed conflict lasting many years with King Stephen of England. Matilda was the only living child of Henry I, and, although he made the barons and lords swear to recognize Matilda's claim to the English throne twice in his reign, Stephen seized the opportunity, and the crown, when Henry I died in 1135. Matilda was in Anjou, France with her second husband, Geoffrey of Anjou, at the time, but many rallied to her cause. In order to end the conflict King Stephen agreed that Matilda and Geoffrey's son Henry would succeed him as king of England.<br /><br />The name "Plantagenet" wasn't imposed upon the dynasty until the 15th century. The first to assume this name was Richard Plantagenet, the Duke of York in the mid-15th century. The word "Plantagenet" refers to the broom plant (Latin term = Planta genista) that Geoffrey of Anjou supposedly wore in his hat. <br /><br /><strong>What made Cardinal Reginald Pole a Plantagenet?</strong><br /><br />Cardinal Pole was indeed a member of the House of Plantagenet. So was Henry VIII technically. However, they were related to the same ruling house through different branches of the family tree.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEga7J1MtywgwOpKBrQfCBd-MJiU6WU88RcGhh2cSzDVEY-9obRjLxthC7jvqxEstRNa0DAX20BlIiIrYybnfQZ_o_W6h4FV-1GZlZkBlpi9U9BwI0EBg6Y1hQm2CY5XRbQa-XBNpWa64A/s1600/EdwardIIIWestminster.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 248px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEga7J1MtywgwOpKBrQfCBd-MJiU6WU88RcGhh2cSzDVEY-9obRjLxthC7jvqxEstRNa0DAX20BlIiIrYybnfQZ_o_W6h4FV-1GZlZkBlpi9U9BwI0EBg6Y1hQm2CY5XRbQa-XBNpWa64A/s320/EdwardIIIWestminster.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5571131440949976466" /></a> The trunk of this tree, if you will, is Edward III and his wife, Philippa of Hainault. They had a big, unusual problem. In direct contrast with Henry VIII, Edward III had TOO MANY children survive into adulthood. <br /><br />Of course, as with any ruling family, the most important person is the oldest son. In Edward III's case, this was Edward, known as the Black Prince. Why don't we know this Edward as Edward IV? Because of another of Edward III's unusual problems--he lived a very long time. Edward the Black Prince predeceased his father by about a year. In keeping with the rules of primogeniture, the next candidate would be the oldest son of Edward the Black Prince. Luckily, he had one of those--Richard. Richard II succeeded Edward III upon his death in 1377.<br /><br />It would be impossible to summarize the outcome, which will inevitably lead to what we call "The Wars of the Roses." Richard II was a very unsuccessful monarch. He was overthrown by Henry IV or Henry Bolingbroke, the son of John of Gaunt, Edward III's third son. There is an unbroken line of the crown passing from father to son between Henry IV, Henry V and Henry VI. However, the fact that Henry VI was really not cut out to be a medieval king reminded everyone that Edward III had a SECOND son in there somewhere. This is where Cardinal Pole's family descends from.<br /><br />Edward III's second son, Lionel of Antwerp, Duke of Clarence, only had a daughter, Philippa. She married Edmund Mortimer, and when she did so, he and the family he had with her inherited Lionel's claim to the throne. A son followed this union (Roger Mortimer), and his only child, Anne Mortimer, became the "carrier" of her great-grandfather Lionel's claim to the throne. Like her grandmother Philippa, this claim would transfer to the children she had by whomever she married.<br /><br />AND THEN, to complicate matters further, Anne Mortimer married a descendant of the FOURTH SON of Edward III, Edmund Langley, Duke of York. Suddenly, you had a family that had not one, but TWO claims to the throne at the same time. <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWfH1k-369FQ0y-POxMEHAnxVnsuCK7mtY7HK2dDV-Qf28Q5gY9ibBeg5LZVUN7S-Qtcrx6gQkHzCFlLXpEsmHIIQxCtWQMn4VeeEJr40DM3Gvt_O1zZYpEHSqTNqy_HSPDI6w6cKigA/s1600/MargaretPole.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 220px; height: 283px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWfH1k-369FQ0y-POxMEHAnxVnsuCK7mtY7HK2dDV-Qf28Q5gY9ibBeg5LZVUN7S-Qtcrx6gQkHzCFlLXpEsmHIIQxCtWQMn4VeeEJr40DM3Gvt_O1zZYpEHSqTNqy_HSPDI6w6cKigA/s320/MargaretPole.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5571132133250976834" /></a> It is this branch of the family that becomes the "House of York" in the Wars of the Roses. From this branch will descend the next two kings of England, and the last of the official Plantagenet line, Edward IV and Richard III. However, there were other members of this family, too. Edward IV and Richard III had a brother in between them in the birth order--George, Duke of Clarence. George predeceased Edward so he never became king, but he did have a family. His daughter, and longest living child, was Margaret Pole, the Duchess of Salisbury and Cardinal Pole's mother. <br /><br /><strong>How much of a threat was Cardinal Pole?</strong><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjR8OV5XlUuOIzzs2W86gdqaa6IVYQpkkkLxod72WEdn3BtCNzTefiYjmFKKy28MSTeZmW8GQE4egi7sHunErc4jfwmvPHXzYjuiZ2QZpYP5DxhCmWwefGxTkR1TQCzNB9NlFqH7xlrjA/s1600/CardinalPole2.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 266px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjR8OV5XlUuOIzzs2W86gdqaa6IVYQpkkkLxod72WEdn3BtCNzTefiYjmFKKy28MSTeZmW8GQE4egi7sHunErc4jfwmvPHXzYjuiZ2QZpYP5DxhCmWwefGxTkR1TQCzNB9NlFqH7xlrjA/s320/CardinalPole2.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5571138780529957474" /></a> The real answer to this question is: not much.<br /><br />Cardinal Pole was abroad until the reign of Henry VIII's daughter Mary. He certainly worked against Henry while he was abroad, but there is some dispute about whether or not he could actually have claimed the English throne given he was a churchman. He was certainly an unordained churchman, but, when he was invested with the office of cardinal by Pope Paul III, it really was out of the question that Cardinal Pole could rule England as a Plantagenet claimant to the throne. <br /><br />In <em>The Tudors</em>, Cardinal Pole's family is imprisoned and executed to punish him. They are innocent victims, cut down because Henry VIII failed to hunt down Cardinal Pole. However, in reality, it was Cardinal Pole's family at home in England that represented the greater threat. Cardinal Pole's publication condemning Henry's actions against the church only gave Thomas Cromwell, Henry's chancellor, a reason to watch the Pole family. Henry and his father before him had always been suspicious of the Poles anyway as representatives of the Plantagenets. Once suspicion was aroused, the Poles' days were automatically numbered. The Poles were one portion of a larger set of victims that were executed for treason between 1538 and 1539. All of these victims were somehow related to the previous Plantagenet dynasty. Margaret Pole would wait for her execution until 1541, although she was well-treated and attended by servants while she lived in the Tower.<br /><br /><strong>What happened to Cardinal Pole?</strong><br /><br />Cardinal Reginald Pole remained abroad for the remainder of Henry VIII's reign and for the brief reign of his son, Edward VI. However, Mary I was a Catholic, and Cardinal Pole returned to England in 1554. He was finally ordained in 1556 and he became the Archbishop of Canterbury. He died in 1558, and it may have been for the best--had he lived any longer, he would have witnessed the accession of the Protestant Elizabeth I, and his job, if not his life, may have been in danger once again.<br /><br />Images:<br /><br />Mark Hildreth as Reginald Pole in <em>The Tudors</em><br /><br />Tomb Plaque of Geoffrey of Anjou. He was buried in St. Julien's Cathedral in Le Mans, France in 1151.<br /><br />Stained-glass portrait of Edward III in Westminster Abbey<br /><br />Portrait of an unknown sitter generally thought to be Margaret Pole, 8th Countess of Salisbury c. 1535<br /><br />Reginald Pole by Sebastiano del Piombopilgrimchickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13808106043964544413noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3012721751896752923.post-24771017222468562372011-01-30T19:49:00.010-05:002011-02-02T20:36:50.498-05:00The Confessions of Catherine de Medici<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2h-eFpHzvai_366tL7VtA8FU-lVgNoiDtkL-2AQFC2aqXqxMxRWZpxptewjiA3uBQfgzO5tK9reHH3dprrrAKLkEL5bFSjS6hFNZ6JrXYlyC1xQjZOtVchvo_9B4priqcAXK9v2pXUA/s1600/Catherinedemedicibook.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 210px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2h-eFpHzvai_366tL7VtA8FU-lVgNoiDtkL-2AQFC2aqXqxMxRWZpxptewjiA3uBQfgzO5tK9reHH3dprrrAKLkEL5bFSjS6hFNZ6JrXYlyC1xQjZOtVchvo_9B4priqcAXK9v2pXUA/s320/Catherinedemedicibook.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5568146270731299586" /></a><br /><br /><strong>Author:</strong> C. W. Gortner<br /><strong>Publication Date:</strong> 2010<br /><strong>Length:</strong> 397 pages<br /><strong>Cost:</strong> It's still newer, so Amazon has it for 33% off of the $25.00 price ($16.67). The softcover is listed at just under $10, and the Kindle edition is just over $13.<br /><strong>Where Did I Hear About It:</strong> I was made aware of Gortner when I picked up <em>The Last Queen</em>, which I reviewed <a href="http://voraciousmindbooks.blogspot.com/2010/12/last-queen-historical-fiction.html">here</a>. This is actually the book I was looking for when I picked up the other one first.<br /><br /><strong>The Backstory</strong><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuCRXJpMExv8XmHRh7V7kDdjm6Q7kKFtPXgm0zsBtT0MdNBJyuRSaseRjvR_EwvMcyevB0F9VNYMEaCYiyVxOuQSXZeKz0Ok_HTaio1NP_BL6eJXQk424z-ZkhZ-dgbH0tn7MGQEUCug/s1600/CatherineMedici+Francois+Clouet.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 243px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuCRXJpMExv8XmHRh7V7kDdjm6Q7kKFtPXgm0zsBtT0MdNBJyuRSaseRjvR_EwvMcyevB0F9VNYMEaCYiyVxOuQSXZeKz0Ok_HTaio1NP_BL6eJXQk424z-ZkhZ-dgbH0tn7MGQEUCug/s320/CatherineMedici+Francois+Clouet.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5568149670269180514" /></a> It's hard to tease out exactly how people perceive Catherine de Medici, the subject of this novel. Many people can match her with the famous Florentine Renaissance family, but her personal story is shrouded in mystery. Perhaps her portrait "says" it all--a strong, unflinching woman, up to the challenge that the many events of her life presented to her. Above all, the word "ruthless" has come to be associated with her, and this is primarily because of her involvement in the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre in 1572 during which hundreds of Protestant Huguenots were killed in Paris, France.<br /><br />Catherine de Medici was born in Florence in 1519, and her parents died quite soon thereafter. Starting in 1520, she was raised by her aunt with her cousins, but when yet another Medici was elected Pope, this time, Giulio de Giuliano de Medici (Pope Clement VII), Catherine was moved to Florence to the Medici Palace there. As Catherine was the only child of the Duke of Urbino, she was acknowledged to be his successor. This worked against her when the Medici were violently overthrown in 1527. Pope Clement had his own problems with Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor, at the time, but Catherine joined him in Rome in 1530 after the rebels in Florence surrendered.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjK0VLlIdQjR27bEp4ul4H2Rr6v_VOZ0HbyVhw2C7LeOn7viW1SN8JTLQQq7QiXjfZa8UpsnzpH9ssTNrV5tzfS8ZL-q4F5B7AvnyvDcfCIEpIN4MxQNJK3FLhkRs8w0bqWszgm1hGc5g/s1600/CatherinedeMediciyounger.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 257px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjK0VLlIdQjR27bEp4ul4H2Rr6v_VOZ0HbyVhw2C7LeOn7viW1SN8JTLQQq7QiXjfZa8UpsnzpH9ssTNrV5tzfS8ZL-q4F5B7AvnyvDcfCIEpIN4MxQNJK3FLhkRs8w0bqWszgm1hGc5g/s320/CatherinedeMediciyounger.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5568155141689386738" /></a>Catherine was betrothed to Henry, Duke of Orleans and second son of King Francis I and Queen Claude. They were both 14 at the time of their marriage, which took place in 1534. Pope Clement VII died the same year, and his successor, Pope Paul III refused to pay Francis I the large dowry his predecessor had promised. This put Catherine in a rather odd, vulnerable position that she had not anticipated. Added to this was Henry's neglect of his wife during the first ten years of their marriage. Instead of focusing on producing a family with Catherine, Henry preferred the company of several mistresses, the most notable being Diane de Poitiers, nearly 20 years his senior.<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEipjF6FHlUKOLoyuavy8M84_HHkrhP2SltU5ChTWeB14vh-F7xYNXU4ShUbvjJW-6olPihLuNo0oSfVsna8DZ7vO0nXeC-MqMdTNCpj7XPo3XUaFibc07fOVY-msbwpyoEMOhPOUB0hbQ/s1600/CatherineMediciHenryClouet.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 215px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEipjF6FHlUKOLoyuavy8M84_HHkrhP2SltU5ChTWeB14vh-F7xYNXU4ShUbvjJW-6olPihLuNo0oSfVsna8DZ7vO0nXeC-MqMdTNCpj7XPo3XUaFibc07fOVY-msbwpyoEMOhPOUB0hbQ/s320/CatherineMediciHenryClouet.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5568156142193812818" /></a> Things changed for Catherine, for the better, when Francis' first son, Francis, died in 1536, probably of tuberculosis exacerbated by his previous living conditions in Spain. Francis had no children, and the responsibility to continue the Valois line fell to Henry and Catherine. Still, it wasn't until 1544 when Catherine gave birth to their first child, a son also named Francis.<br /><br />It seems that Henry never warmed to Catherine, although they had nine children together. His primary mistress, Diane, actually encouraged the couple to have children, and this may the primary reason why they produced such a large family even though there was no affection between them. In 1559, Henry died after a jousting accident in which a lance broke in his eye. This changed everything again for Catherine. Her oldest son, Francis, then married to Mary, Queen of Scots, became king at the age of 15. He was immediately surrounded by a Catholic faction at court headed by the family of the Duke of Guise. This faction was interested in prosecuting the increasing Huguenot population in France, although Catherine encouraged her son to be tolerant. Francis died in 1560, and her second son, Charles, succeeded him. Catherine was far closer to Charles--he was only 9 years old--and wielded considerable power during his reign. Not wishing to push the country, on the brink of civil war, any farther, she adopted a policy of general inaction against the Protestants. This didn't stop the simmering unrest throughout the country mostly controlled by the nobility. <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnAK5G93cRsYhvkRPfZ4OF1eh0eBifzgg4IDca-_k9KcfFkQdSCW56hMq6alS7sIlDEkyYt1-mfjlZuri-UpgyFI4-Ylx34I84jt4t1EWi9reqsxQImp302-uZo1FCjLrh2Ufbmh3irQ/s1600/CatherineMediciGaspardColigny.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 285px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnAK5G93cRsYhvkRPfZ4OF1eh0eBifzgg4IDca-_k9KcfFkQdSCW56hMq6alS7sIlDEkyYt1-mfjlZuri-UpgyFI4-Ylx34I84jt4t1EWi9reqsxQImp302-uZo1FCjLrh2Ufbmh3irQ/s320/CatherineMediciGaspardColigny.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5568160650890846306" /></a> One of the leaders, Admiral Gaspard de Coligny, refused to disband a force of nearly 2,000 Protestant-sympathizers, and Catherine decided enough was enough. Catherine's Catholic forces, primarily under the control of the nobility of the affiliated court faction, struck back. However, at a siege of the city of Orleans, the head of the Guise family was killed in 1563. Unrest between Catholics and Protestants would remain a prominent political feature on the French landscape through the end of the century.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEieFCmrIKx4eoa-Tv0zo5X4-IV7DWyI7tiDADQA8npEShX_kPTLdMeNCCeNWognflUV-WpOkZBSZ8WkfFv365lfAg3M8Pcu5Q1BqhR29EGsTUJjtP1UIxV5hUjR_UV6429dv61_YRIfxw/s1600/CatherineMediciMargot1560.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 244px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEieFCmrIKx4eoa-Tv0zo5X4-IV7DWyI7tiDADQA8npEShX_kPTLdMeNCCeNWognflUV-WpOkZBSZ8WkfFv365lfAg3M8Pcu5Q1BqhR29EGsTUJjtP1UIxV5hUjR_UV6429dv61_YRIfxw/s320/CatherineMediciMargot1560.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5568162465306404594" /></a>Catherine sought important marital alliances with the most prominent families in Europe. The most fateful alliance involved Catherine's daughter, Margaret, and Henry III of Navarre. Margaret wasn't much in favor of this match, and the couple never entirely got along. Margaret married Henry in 1572, days before the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre. He returned in Navarre in 1576 without his wife, but she eventually joined him there. Eventually, after causing unnecessary unrest in Navarre, she was imprisoned by her brother, Henry (who succeeded Charles) in 1586 and spent nearly 20 years under house arrest.<br /><br />Catherine's third son, Henry, succeeded Charles in 1574. Henry was an adult, and Catherine's role was not as prominent in his reign as it had been previously under Francis and Charles. Henry gradually lost patience with the Catholic court faction, and he murdered their leader, the Duke of Guise, in 1588. Because Henry had a childless marriage, he was forced to recognize Margot's husband, Henry, King of Navarre, as his successor. Navarre was a Protestant and living estranged from Margot, but regardless, he became king of France in 1589, eight months after Catherine de Medici died at the age of 69.<br /><br /><strong>What About the Book?</strong><br /><br />Although this book is just as readable as <em>The Last Queen</em>, the story isn't quite as compelling in this novel as it was in its predecessor. There are plenty of interesting moments, personal challenges, and there is a huge cast of characters. Unfortunately, I think it is the fact that Gortner attempts to cover such a long period of time--nearly Catherine's whole life--that makes it difficult to keep the momentum in the narrative going from the beginning to the end.<br /><br />Gortner again takes on the role of Catherine from a first-person perspective, and this is the same approach that he takes in <em>The Last Queen</em>. However, his perspective is more limited in this novel, and his lack of complete understanding of women peeks through far more. For example, when other women discuss Margot's narcissism, the solution proposed by Catherine and her other daughter, Claude, is that Margot should just have children and all will be right with the world. I see too many parallels between this perspective and this same mistaken assumption made by some men today to ignore it. There is more complexity in the character of Juana than there is in Catherine's character, and I think Gortner had a huge challenge in attempting to tell such a long story with so many events in only 400 pages. The story of Juana is much shorter, and it is clearly easier for Gortner to develop her character in that time frame.<br /><br />I think one of the problems that can't be ignored by someone who has read both of Gortner's novels is how many similarities there are between them, and between the two women at the center of their stories. Both novels are "confessions" composed years after the events featured. Both novels attempt to "apologize" for and explain why the heroines did what they did to gain the reputations that history has afforded them. Juana is known as mad; Catherine is known as ruthless and cruel. Gortner tells their stories to try and explain the events that gained them these reputations. Both had troubled marriages, and they resolved these troubles somehow so their spouses, who preceded them in death, could die in peace. It's a little too neatly laid out for the reader--I think it wouldn't matter which novel a reader were to pick up first--he/she would come to the same conclusion.<br /><br />Because the time frame in the novel moves so fast, it is hard to gain a true perspective of the conflicts between Catholics and Protestants in France at this time, and it is this conflict that is at the center of the novel. Readers don't grow to understand either perspective, but rather, to dislike both. Since Gortner's Catherine attempts to be sympathetic to both, it would only be fitting that the reader come to the same conclusion. <br /><br />Gortner offers titles of other books at the end of the novel, again, which is an excellent touch. He also explains a few of the inconsistencies in the book and why he made the changes. As with any piece of historical fiction, some of it is accurate and some of it isn't. The series of events surrounding the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre are pretty accurate, but the fact that Charles, Catherine's son and king at the time, is poisoned by Margot after being unable to live with himself after these events is not--Charles lived another two years after the fact, and it is completely improbable that his sister would have taken his life.<br /><br /><strong>Rating:</strong> A 7--it's a fast-moving read with a lot of interesting events and people. However, Catherine's character isn't as well-developed, the book covers nearly her whole life in 400 pages, and it isn't as easy to buy Gortner's apology for Catherine's reputation for cruelty.<br /><strong>Buy It or Borrow It:</strong> Borrow it. It's actually well worth your time. However, I still think that <em>The Last Queen</em> is the better novel of the two.<br /><br /><strong>Images:</strong><br /><br />Catherine de Medici by Francois Clouet after 1559<br /><br />Catherine de Medici by Santi di Tito<br /><br />Henry II of France, formerly the Duke of Orleans, by Francois Clouet<br /><br />Gaspard de Coligny by Francois Clouet<br /><br />Marguerite de Valois by Francois Clouet, c. 1560pilgrimchickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13808106043964544413noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3012721751896752923.post-12366799470428286552011-01-30T10:25:00.012-05:002011-02-02T17:20:12.446-05:00The Tudors Fact Check: Good Queen Jane?<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhreXYdJX_Xg2A3RIhtrydp90AMnq4FajUKIz-OGBPPrut8rSnfBPOk37P4E7VIxblmK2AlVGFQwJSvC9osjp5iWxuyceXoRHG052AU-Oe5F8pynrbVnA9FaP23k1s-K23mRAztD8ZVRA/s1600/QueenJanecollar.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 319px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhreXYdJX_Xg2A3RIhtrydp90AMnq4FajUKIz-OGBPPrut8rSnfBPOk37P4E7VIxblmK2AlVGFQwJSvC9osjp5iWxuyceXoRHG052AU-Oe5F8pynrbVnA9FaP23k1s-K23mRAztD8ZVRA/s320/QueenJanecollar.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5568004129270483746" /></a>So, who was Jane Seymour? <em>The Tudors</em> paints a picture of a beautiful, young blonde woman who stole King Henry's heart and was a beacon of kindness, compassion, and selflessness. The king, his daughter, Mary, and the court mourned her sudden death after the safe, if difficult, delivery of King Henry's most longed-for son, Prince Edward. <br /><br />But, is that really who she was?<br /><br />In the series, Jane is discovered by Henry while he is visiting Wulfhall, the home of Sir John Seymour, a friend and former partner-at-arms of King Henry. During the visit, Jane sneaks a peek at the men eating dinner together. Henry notices her, and Sir John introduces her to him. He is immediately taken by her beauty, and he offers to have her installed as one of Queen Anne's ladies at court.<br /><br />Henry begins to court Jane, who appears to be the paragon of maidenly female virtue. She is completely taken by the king's attentions, falling on her knees whenever he approaches her personally. Queen Anne is aware of Henry's interest in Jane, but she is unable to remove her from her service for fear of inciting Henry's increasingly unpredictable wrath. Anne is far less concerned when she becomes pregnant for the third time.<br /><br />Henry, ever confident of his physical prowess, fights in a jousting tournament among his friends. Jane, newly arrived at court, is asked for her "favors" (generally a piece of ribbon or something like it) to give Henry luck when he faces his challenge. He tucks the piece of ribbon into the side of his chest plate, positioning it over his heart. Upon a charge, Henry is struck from his horse and thrown into unconsciousness. He awakens hours later, the whole court and his family frightened by the proposition of Henry's death. Henry later tells Jane that her image was before him in his subconscious state and that she represents all that is good and pure.<br /><br />Anne and her family feel that Jane could be entirely ousted if Anne were to finally bear the son that Henry so dearly desires. Henry sends Jane a purse of coins and a letter, which Jane accepts. He also gives Jane a locket with his picture inside of it. Anne discovers this locket, demands to see it, and rips it from Jane's neck after she inspects the picture inside. Lady Margaret Sheldon (Madge) finds the locket later on the floor and gives it back to Jane.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqwvYoRpotddrwoLYuWAVJPBJQ8q9hA2sl7vVJ4iv0bnl_J3IeiSXNmMmpa0ldsmW16HtHcXJt3sl92RkCmc9x7-0oZoQ_bMqYs9NcqQXpDl8twXKcd6M4ZaaZKfgL-sMj_dA08eaP-w/s1600/QueenJanecourting.bmp"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 214px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqwvYoRpotddrwoLYuWAVJPBJQ8q9hA2sl7vVJ4iv0bnl_J3IeiSXNmMmpa0ldsmW16HtHcXJt3sl92RkCmc9x7-0oZoQ_bMqYs9NcqQXpDl8twXKcd6M4ZaaZKfgL-sMj_dA08eaP-w/s320/QueenJanecourting.bmp" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5568006479934012498" /></a> The pivotal moment occurs when Henry summons Jane to see him. He sits on a chair at the head of a table, and he invites her to sit on his lap. He lures her into a kiss just as Queen Anne, several months pregnant, bursts into the room. She flies into a rage. Henry attempts to calm Anne down, hoping to save the life of their child, but, later that evening, Anne miscarries for the second time of what appears to be a deformed boy, about three or four months old.<br /><br />Henry has had enough of his marriage to Anne, and he, working with Cromwell, mercilessly brings Anne down. Anne is charged with adultery, as are several others, including her brother. While Anne is in prison awaiting her fate, Henry is eager for the change that Jane presents him--her purity will mean his rebirth after years under the influence of the dishonest, power-hungry Anne and her family. Jane is pictured joyfully planning her wedding with Henry while Anne languishes in the Tower.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrmW65OUv8Hz92SESAj5ZLpsAka9Me4J-aLXQdsC9cMo6KfXFQGuNvd_zwSjA9FeMeYRt7pG5oEw0JziBSXuGFPGZ6YCNMbhjeQtsMcngBPLbzkfj3TVlqlJrRxa0Juat2dctBXqxmyw/s1600/QueenJaneKingHenry.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 213px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrmW65OUv8Hz92SESAj5ZLpsAka9Me4J-aLXQdsC9cMo6KfXFQGuNvd_zwSjA9FeMeYRt7pG5oEw0JziBSXuGFPGZ6YCNMbhjeQtsMcngBPLbzkfj3TVlqlJrRxa0Juat2dctBXqxmyw/s320/QueenJaneKingHenry.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5568009958333270786" /></a> Henry marries Jane at the beginning of the third season of the program, and it is clear that this is quite soon after Anne's execution. Jane immediately demonstrates her mythical kindness by accepting Lady Rochford, the widow of Anne's brother, into her household given how bad circumstances have become for her since her husband's death. Jane also begins to campaign for the return of the Lady Mary Tudor to court and into the King's favor. Henry warns her that she is treading on dangerous ground by meddling in his affairs, and she immediately is quieted. Jane also learns that Lady Elizabeth Tudor is not given any money for new clothes, and she sends her one of her jewels to make up for the lack of funds.<br /><br />Lady Mary Tudor is received at court again after signing a document declaring Henry the head of the Church of England and her parents' marriage to be unlawful. Jane encourages a more positive relationship between Henry and Mary by accompanying him to visit Mary and inviting Mary to court for Christmas as a surprise for Henry. She also invites Elizabeth, and she is received warmly by her father. In an intimate moment with Henry, she attempts to argue for the reinstatement of the monasteries in the north, but Henry again demands that she stay out of his affairs lest she end up like Anne. <br /><br />Jane becomes pregnant, later than Henry would like, but it is still an occasion for joy.<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZxWYDEihPK5WvBgMMSgiLUA-cw0CKcYiMkg-L2YtC0amxQ7RjV84j0Tptk53YEhkpSE-4LH-SELWB03X8LdEAoDi3hBSLRgwvmOGQoUeFth-6uoV5_mU8dwmTjvk4NDReEJkwf2LbGA/s1600/QueenJane1.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 291px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZxWYDEihPK5WvBgMMSgiLUA-cw0CKcYiMkg-L2YtC0amxQ7RjV84j0Tptk53YEhkpSE-4LH-SELWB03X8LdEAoDi3hBSLRgwvmOGQoUeFth-6uoV5_mU8dwmTjvk4NDReEJkwf2LbGA/s320/QueenJane1.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5568011845073450594" /></a> Jane demonstrates a craving for quails' eggs at dinner with Henry, and Henry realizes Jane's condition. He is convinced this is the son he has so longed for. Jane invites him into her rooms to let him feel the child move in her womb. Soon, Jane goes into labor, and it is hard and long. Physicians are sent in, believing that a Cesarean section may be necessary, but in the end, Jane, manages to deliver Edward safely. Henry is overjoyed. Within days, Jane falls ill--Henry recognizes her condition as "childbed fever," of which his mother previously died. He prays that Jane not be taken away from him; her kindness and goodness sustains him. <br /><br />Jane dies, her body laid out in a chapel, Henry kneeling by it, whispering that he will lie with her soon, for all eternity. <br /><br /><strong>What's the real story?</strong><br /><br />Very little is known about Jane Seymour, mostly because her origins are so obscure and because she was queen for such a short period of time. <br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgeO4XRv-3DtRQfbj-6yts8nA5y_JJUfTL3_56xIN25Vt8ljNC5M5lIoA4NCbQ2WY4KVKUKw8pyRsKdLyvY7-vRummqiXO4vHq-B6lzFLwsL3EPNrq8Z2ZHiPZFjX69P4_MgarA-JiStQ/s1600/JaneportraitHolbein.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 198px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgeO4XRv-3DtRQfbj-6yts8nA5y_JJUfTL3_56xIN25Vt8ljNC5M5lIoA4NCbQ2WY4KVKUKw8pyRsKdLyvY7-vRummqiXO4vHq-B6lzFLwsL3EPNrq8Z2ZHiPZFjX69P4_MgarA-JiStQ/s320/JaneportraitHolbein.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5568014178650678434" /></a>Jane Seymour was probably born in 1508, and historians generally agree upon this year because, at her death, 29 ladies walked in mourning in her funeral procession, traditionally one for each year of her life. She was born at Wulfhall, which is in Wiltshire, and historians believe that she was in service to Queen Katherine of Aragon before working in Queen Anne's household. She may have been in Queen Katherine's service as early as 1527, but she may have been discharged when the Queen's household was reduced in 1533. However, she was probably already working for Queen Anne by the beginning of 1534--one year before Henry's "fatefull" visit to Wulfhall.<br /><br />The story of Henry's visit to Wulfhall is certainly embellished after-the-fact. Henry AND Anne visited Wulfhall for a few days in 1535, and it is unclear whether Jane was present. Even if she was, this certainly couldn't have been when Henry first met Jane as Jane, even if she was first hired to work for Anne and never did for Katherine, would have been working in the queen's household for over a year by that time. This visit seems more significant for Edward, Jane's elder brother. Edward Seymour would be very significant later on. When Henry VIII died in 1547, he arranged for a council of regency to act for and guide the young King Edward VI. Edward Seymour, then Earl of Hertford, was elected by the council to act as Lord Protector of England and Governor of the King's Person. It's a position he would come to regret. <br /><br />Henry was not knocked out by a blow in a joust, but, on January 24, 1536, his horse tumbled and he was unconscious for about two hours. Publicly, Anne claimed that news of this incident, brought to her by the Duke of Norfolk, was the main cause of her miscarriage five days later. However, Emperor Charles V's ambassador to the English court, Eustace Chapuys, makes mention in a letter sent at the beginning of February that Anne privately was worried about her potential inability to produce children and Henry's continued attentions to Jane Seymour. There is no evidence that the fetus was in any way deformed, and as Anne believed she was 15 weeks along, the sex of the child may have been unable to be determined with any certainty. <br /><br />Henry did send Jane a letter and a bag of coins in March 1536, but in reality, she sent them back. This was probably a sign that Henry was summoning Jane to become his latest royal mistress, and Jane must have known what was in the letter if she sent it back, without opening it, and made the statement she did in response to its delivery. She kissed the letter, returned it to the sender with the coins, and claimed that nothing was more valuable to her than her virginity. If the king wished to send her money, she asked that it be done when she had contracted an advantageous marriage.<br /><br />This was Anne Boleyn's trump card, played so many years earlier. Whether truly because she valued her virginity or because she valued the favors she and her family would enjoy if she held out from the king for a while, Anne did exactly the same thing. Anne won a king with this trick--so would Jane.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrAaN_uEQIXe9qEk95f_s2fQb6pCssXUafwSJ_UDhGsLn3txuy8eLjJDk7bzzmB7cs38ZjjhCaeOIGHdVmVQApCqvXc_pVP8j8f38FS6q3jEVmXu1Fu2EDzSYqwQipdryfW0BNzTDfNQ/s1600/Janeminiature.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 318px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrAaN_uEQIXe9qEk95f_s2fQb6pCssXUafwSJ_UDhGsLn3txuy8eLjJDk7bzzmB7cs38ZjjhCaeOIGHdVmVQApCqvXc_pVP8j8f38FS6q3jEVmXu1Fu2EDzSYqwQipdryfW0BNzTDfNQ/s320/Janeminiature.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5568024562178553170" /></a> It is important to understand where Jane and her family stood regarding the reformation of the church, which was ongoing at the time. Anne and her family were reformists, and Henry had surrounded himself with people of like-minds while they enjoyed influence at court. However, there were many of considerable, long-standing noble origin who did not support the separation of England from the Catholic Church, and Jane's association with them cannot be ignored. In particular, this faction was interested in the restoration of the Lady Mary to the succession. Anne had also done quite a bit of damage on her own. She was well-known for her sharp tongue and hardened opinions, and this had resulted in the alienation of many who had been her supporters. <br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZQFu-cHFSV-d0NNSShxrT0xvgdJ0LPDbm_q93_zBBXkT3nQO3rlNkn5R-qxgj6bDVN5UAKRRr6EH27roLvFcAHfQObw1AE7h60SKq5FfQOAom6YqKyBxAcCcgefPokvwjsXlR1CVf0A/s1600/JaneportraitCastShadowWorkshop1536.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 282px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZQFu-cHFSV-d0NNSShxrT0xvgdJ0LPDbm_q93_zBBXkT3nQO3rlNkn5R-qxgj6bDVN5UAKRRr6EH27roLvFcAHfQObw1AE7h60SKq5FfQOAom6YqKyBxAcCcgefPokvwjsXlR1CVf0A/s320/JaneportraitCastShadowWorkshop1536.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5568027277817482802" /></a> There is no written evidence of Jane's immediate association with Anne's enemies, but it is clear that she was Anne's foil in every possible way. She was quiet, humble, and submissive. She wasn't particularly well-educated, although she could read and write. Her motto was "Bound to obey and serve," and she embodied this to the letter. She was also not particularly attractive. Eustace Chapuys wrote to Charles V that "nobody thinks she has much beauty." Her portraits generally attest to that reality. What was she, then? Probably many things that made her attractive at the moment Anne was about to lose her life--she was a completely different personality, she was available, and the king had been paying her attentions and growing in ardor just at that time. Henry had given up his marriage to Katherine of Aragon once he had her successor secure. He seems to have sought companionship with women--not simply idle lust--and expected that he would be married, if not to one, throughout his entire life.<br /><br />It is possible--even probable--that Jane was coached to be who she was with Henry. It won her a crown in the end.<br /><br />Henry married Jane on May 30, 1536. She did argue for the Lady Mary's reinstatement, but she was quieted by Henry's demand that she stay out of his affairs. It seems that Henry was already softening to Mary's case once Anne was out of the picture. Cromwell obtained Henry's blessing for Mary to write to him on the same day. In June, the terms of their reconciliation were made clear to Mary--she would have to accept Henry as the head of the church and her mother's marriage as incestuous. On June 22, Mary yielded to most of these demands, finally later capitulating entirely. Henry and Jane visited her on July 6, and Mary was given funds. Mary returned to court after this, and Elizabeth would return as well. However, these were Henry's decisions and arrangements--not Jane's.<br /><br />Jane's pregnancy was public by May 1537. Jane's main craving was for quails--not quails' eggs. The labor was extremely difficult for her, lasting several days. On Friday, October 12, she gave birth to Edward Tudor, Henry's only legitimate, living son.<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCouy_PhZ25SH0v3k132GF882UazauZ-HBJvE7DgHr3qFyhpOA6AXe6XmmvkAh8eKsgUGlZ2PYfTqJH5IFvAhuzu9cEwtMYyyBDQXAFwOZ_siU9st5fNsQTb3jzrkhMw7IHlKCguJfng/s1600/JanePrinceEdward.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 245px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCouy_PhZ25SH0v3k132GF882UazauZ-HBJvE7DgHr3qFyhpOA6AXe6XmmvkAh8eKsgUGlZ2PYfTqJH5IFvAhuzu9cEwtMYyyBDQXAFwOZ_siU9st5fNsQTb3jzrkhMw7IHlKCguJfng/s320/JanePrinceEdward.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5568030929743910450" /></a> Jane made a good recovery initially, but she took a turn for the worse suddenly, and she died on October 24. How did Henry feel about this? Seemingly, not very touched. He had delayed a trip to Esher because of Jane's health, but it was reported that he was "determined" to be there on the 25th, regardless of her state by that time. However, it is also recorded that Henry assigned Norfolk the task of arranging for the funeral because he was "too broken" to do it himself. It is more likely that Henry's claims to be beside himself with grief were exaggerated niceties--kings didn't arrange for their wives' funerals customarily anyway. Everything was arranged as befit Jane's status. Her body lie in state until November 8, and she was buried four days later in a vault of St. George's Chapel. Court mourning lasted for three months following. <br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJVvx_VI1ugusXLTZC6I_hiZpKtFTEslN-hZjwqlvcsiRgoGM5zwWD1LP36Ea5eve-T_aaWWiGv8rOfT_J2R8RIUUnjH-aOkrCtCsFBjU4BX6u2CTni25BBd6hsylSfkM0fLZ9gJVg_g/s1600/JaneHenryHenryElizabeth.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 290px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJVvx_VI1ugusXLTZC6I_hiZpKtFTEslN-hZjwqlvcsiRgoGM5zwWD1LP36Ea5eve-T_aaWWiGv8rOfT_J2R8RIUUnjH-aOkrCtCsFBjU4BX6u2CTni25BBd6hsylSfkM0fLZ9gJVg_g/s320/JaneHenryHenryElizabeth.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5568033111503354498" /></a> Henry did decide to be buried beside her upon his death nearly ten years later. Family portraits commissioned by Henry, regardless to whom he was married at the time, always featured Jane as his wife. This is generally considered a testament to the fact that Jane was the only wife who produced his longed-for male heir. Perhaps it is a commentary about how Henry perceived his wives' main roles to be. Whatever the reason, Jane, plain, quiet, and dull, was immortalized by Henry as his one true wife.<br /><br /><strong>Verdict</strong><br /><br /><em>The Tudors</em> gets an 7 for events, but a 3 for casting Jane's character. Most of the events surrounding Jane and Henry are true or only slightly adapted. However, there is no evidence that Jane was extremely kind. It is more likely that her "kindness," especially to Lady Mary, was motivated by the desires of her connections to an anti-Boleyn, Catholic court faction. Henry certainly did not have the same ardor for her that he previously had for Anne. The series casts Jane as the light in his life, whereas she was probably more of a dull, and therefore more attractive, alternative to Anne's spectacular wit and alluring appearance. It is also more likely that Jane was acutely aware of where Anne's actions landed her, and she was probably unwilling to directly affect the affairs of court and of Henry's family in order to keep herself in Henry's good graces. Henry generally distanced himself from things "unpleasant," including death in any form, so the bedside plea to God for Jane's preservation is almost completely out of the question. Had Jane lived longer, we may know more about her and her character today. However, the idea that she was all goodness and light--or that she was even pretty--is a little far-fetched, to say the least. <br /><br /><strong>Images:</strong><br /><br />Annabell Wallis as Jane Seymour from <em>The Tudors</em>, Season Three<br /><br />Anita Briem (Jane Seymour) and King Henry VIII (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) from <em>The Tudors</em>, Season 2<br /><br />Presentation of Jane Seymour to court after her marriage to King Henry VIII from <em>The Tudors</em>, Season 3<br /><br />Annabell Wallis as Jane Seymour from <em>The Tudors</em>, Season Three<br /><br />Jane Seymour by Hans Holbein, 1536<br /><br />Jane Seymour, miniature, by Lucas Horenbout<br /><br />Jane Seymour by unknown painter from the Cast Shadow Workshop, 1536<br /><br />Prince Edward by Hans Holbein, c. 1538<br /><br />"The Tudor Dynasty," a copy smaller of a life-sized mural, now lost. The original was done by Hans Holbein. The copy was done by an unknown, less talented, artist.pilgrimchickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13808106043964544413noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3012721751896752923.post-27057881200218571802011-01-21T21:00:00.007-05:002011-01-21T22:43:02.272-05:00The Tudors Fact Check: Margaret Tudor and Charles BrandonIn Season One of Showtime's series <em>The Tudors</em>, the viewer meets several characters and begins to follow their stories. One of the few characters who is featured throughout the series is Charles Brandon, the Duke of Suffolk.<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirPXQkBPtcw7pi3W0QKOUxyTHuJPLrz2k1LILn8v95NNkpBrkXt2IQe83esDJYA0YwoyXZBlLCZqjyMqjZjuoYqrH5tQhimXgFbbKAzJGQ1bPnNg8lYVDdjv9jgbbpAN1Tp4tuRLs4Tg/s1600/Duke+of+Suffolk.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 256px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirPXQkBPtcw7pi3W0QKOUxyTHuJPLrz2k1LILn8v95NNkpBrkXt2IQe83esDJYA0YwoyXZBlLCZqjyMqjZjuoYqrH5tQhimXgFbbKAzJGQ1bPnNg8lYVDdjv9jgbbpAN1Tp4tuRLs4Tg/s320/Duke+of+Suffolk.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5564826405470761250" /></a> In the first season, Charles and Henry VIII are close friends, sharing adventures, sport, and womanizing together. Then, things take a turn for the scandalous--Charles gets romantically involved with Henry's sister, Margaret. <br /><br />Here is how the story plays out in the series:<br /><br />Henry VIII asks Charles Brandon to escort his sister, Margaret, to Portugal to marry the old, decrepit king. Charles protests that his rank isn't high enough to warrant his taking on such an important charge. Henry responds by granting him the title Duke of Suffolk. However, knowing Charles' reputation as a notorious womanizer, Henry warns Charles about getting involved with Margaret. Margaret, on the other hand, isn't thrilled by the idea of being married to the King of Portugal or by being escorted by someone as low-born as Charles. She demands that Henry promise her that should she go through with the marriage, when the King dies, she should be permitted to marry who she chooses.<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5I8SMY2UrZM2lZqxrrYA1ui4dEL1dPyowxtwlA-O-JiRBkrK_cFT9wn-i5_xhGpFlGEl8QaQHBA9QUrHsKI1UM2aO2A3AINfJ-N2a8wNA6wbHWkIQdEVXMLJl4P7L_hzbdcBQOBI9Vw/s1600/Margaret+Tudor.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 256px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5I8SMY2UrZM2lZqxrrYA1ui4dEL1dPyowxtwlA-O-JiRBkrK_cFT9wn-i5_xhGpFlGEl8QaQHBA9QUrHsKI1UM2aO2A3AINfJ-N2a8wNA6wbHWkIQdEVXMLJl4P7L_hzbdcBQOBI9Vw/s320/Margaret+Tudor.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5564829164383942610" /></a> <br /><br />Charles accompanies Margaret to Portugal. Along the way, they become romantically involved. When they arrive, a terrified Margaret is introduced to the King of Portugal, and she is immediately repulsed by his age and pronounced limp. Regardless, she married the King, and he manages to perform in the nuptial bed. When Charles informs her that the English escort is due to leave, she smothers the King, suffocating him with a pillow. As a result, she returns with the escort, enjoying Charles' company on the way back. Both of them are at a loss as to what to do about their relationship. Charles proposes that they marry.<br /><br />Charles and Henry's mutual friend, William Compton, breaks the news to Henry, and he is incensed. He banishes Charles and Margaret from court. Under these secluded circumstances, their marriage quickly starts to fall apart. Charles begs Henry for the opportunity to return to court, and, after winning an arm-wrestling match against Henry, he is welcomed back. Margaret returns as well, but, because she disapproves of Henry's relationship with Anne Boelyn, she chooses to spend more time at home in Suffolk. Charles returns to his womanizing ways, growing more and more neglectful of Margaret. Margaret quickly dies of consumption while he is at court. <br /><br /><strong>What's the real story?</strong><br /><br />Although several sources claim that "Margaret Tudor" in the series is actually a composite of Henry VIII's two real sisters, Mary and Margaret Tudor, I fail to see how there is much of Margaret Tudor in either the story or the character presented in the program. The story is based nearly entirely on the life of Mary Tudor, and certainly with more than a few liberties taken. It may have been that the screenwriters didn't think it made much sense to have two regularly-mentioned characters with the same name, and decided against simply calling the character Mary Tudor (the other Mary Tudor was Henry's daughter by Catherine of Aragon). As far as I can see, the only "composite" of Margaret and Mary Tudor is the fact that Margaret's name is affixed to Mary Tudor's story.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6ExG-rUafqMAuKhbEO9Yi_C334cCeFb17fBF7WVnJNKzYkcvo65qvz2OGKzgYDSFoO3ibyc86ApNMrKB2gev2APive1Bk7eHwfleWFXbsujf23OmymaWS-cz_Cx3l1c-tjkFoG7H7nQ/s1600/MargaretTudorOriginal.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 210px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6ExG-rUafqMAuKhbEO9Yi_C334cCeFb17fBF7WVnJNKzYkcvo65qvz2OGKzgYDSFoO3ibyc86ApNMrKB2gev2APive1Bk7eHwfleWFXbsujf23OmymaWS-cz_Cx3l1c-tjkFoG7H7nQ/s320/MargaretTudorOriginal.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5564835325765085954" /></a>Margaret Tudor was Henry VIII's older sister, born in 1489 and married James IV of Scotland in 1503. She was closely involved in Scottish politics during her lifetime and especially after her husband died in 1513. She married twice more after the king's death, and it is through her that her grandson, James I, had enough of a claim to the English throne that he succeeded Elizabeth I, Henry's last surviving child, known as the Virgin Queen. <br /><br />Mary Tudor was Henry VIII's younger sister. She was born in 1496 and was rumored to be extremely beautiful. She was originally betrothed to the future Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, due to marry him in 1514, but Henry VIII decided against this match after he succeeded his father as king of England. Henry and Mary were close, and their shared interests meant they spent a lot of time together at court. Henry, interested in cementing a positive relationship with France, arranged a new marriage contract for Mary with Louis XII of France who was, unfortunately, about 34 years older and apparently, not a very attractive prospect. Henry was aware that Mary was attracted to Charles Brandon, the Duke of Suffolk. Charles Brandon was granted the title Duke of Suffolk while Henry was working to encourage a marriage between him and Margaret of Savoy, the governor of the Netherlands. This ennoblement was also in response to Charles' father's involvement in the pivotal battle of Bosworth in 1485 in Henry VII's favor. Mary did, though, ask her brother for the right to marry who she chose after Louis' death, and Henry, eager for her to accept Louis, granted this request.<br /><br />Louis XII didn't last long, although longer than the King of Portugal did, and Mary certainly didn't directly kill him. They were married for just over 80 days at the end of 1514, and there was some implication that his active, physical involvement with his wife put enough strain on him to hasten his death rather abruptly. Mary was rushed into seclusion after his death to ensure that she was not pregnant with Louis' heir. She was later kept in relative seclusion by succeeding King Francis. Henry dispatched Charles Brandon to bring Mary back to England. Upon his arrival, he learned that Francis was aware of Mary's feelings for Charles, and Mary demanded that Charles marry her then and there. Charles, taken aback by the situation and overwhelmed by emotion, agreed. Charles and Mary married secretly in France.<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxmehGEsGxsTSY2ZMkfY7coNikk36TP5knQ9Gt5tgJB09S4234fkAn1tEzPYj9hVYxSPWVHu9JdJQayOc01rTCYUGaKRjy0zP0Dz_57wlkybD45pdl1pSomKCA4cK5JPB51TWpRstoeA/s1600/MaryandCharles.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 286px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxmehGEsGxsTSY2ZMkfY7coNikk36TP5knQ9Gt5tgJB09S4234fkAn1tEzPYj9hVYxSPWVHu9JdJQayOc01rTCYUGaKRjy0zP0Dz_57wlkybD45pdl1pSomKCA4cK5JPB51TWpRstoeA/s320/MaryandCharles.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5564842438909229698" /></a> Charles immediately knew this was going to be problematic, so he wrote to Cardinal Wolsey, Henry's chancellor and friend, to ask for help. Wolsey managed to plead Charles' case to Henry successfully, and they were allowed to return to England. They had to pay Henry back Mary's dowry, over a period of time, and beg the king's forgiveness. They were married again, publicly, in May 1515 in England.<br /><br />Mary was close to Catherine of Aragon, and Charles' working against Catherine and in favor of Henry's divorce proceedings may have put a wedge between the two of them, although this is unclear. Mary and Charles had four children together during the course of their marriage. She exhibited signs of failing health after a bout of the sweating sickness in 1518, and she died, probably from cancer, in 1533. Months later, Charles married his ward and his son's betrothed, Catherine Willoughby.<br /><br /><strong>Verdict</strong><br /><br /><em>The Tudors</em> gets about a 5 for historical accuracy. "Margaret" Tudor does marry an old king she isn't happy with, although this should have been the king of France. Since the timing of this is everything, and the series starts in the 1520s, it was probably necessary to change the monarch (all of this really happened between 1514 and 1515). She does ask Henry for the right to marry who she chooses later on. However, she had feelings for Charles Brandon long before she married him. The marriage was definitely an illicit one from a political standpoint, and Henry was angry, but not enough to banish them from court in the real history (and not enough to require that Charles arm-wrestle him for the right to return). The real Charles Brandon certainly had a multitude of problems with women, but whether or not this made him a womanizer in real life is a mystery. "Margaret" did disagree with Henry's divorce proceedings against Catherine. However, her death in the program occurs before 1530, and she lasted into the decade another three years. There is also no mention of the Brandons having had any children in the series, which they certainly did. The impression is given that their marriage was a short one, when it actually lasted 18 years. She dies of consumption in the program, but it is more likely that she actually died of cancer. <br /><br />One of the best points? The story of Charles Brandon and Mary Tudor, whether portrayed on the screen or read as factual history is equally fascinating in either case. It may be a little much to call it a true love story from the historical standpoint, but it was definitely a case of truth being just as entertaining as fiction.<br /><br />Images:<br /><br />Henry Cavill as Charles Brandon, the Duke of Suffolk in <em>The Tudors</em><br /><br />Gabrielle Anwar as Margaret Tudor in <em>The Tudors</em><br /><br />Margaret Tudor by Daniel Mytens c. 1500-1503<br /><br />Mary Tudor and Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, unknown artist, c. 1516pilgrimchickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13808106043964544413noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3012721751896752923.post-23251471276456830442010-12-15T22:00:00.008-05:002010-12-18T11:23:53.615-05:00The Last Queen (Historical Fiction)<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMiPJ3tWSxDCl5B8Y5YQtR5iIFVIoWOrJLk4lSDY9jIj4Wek3uUZiKXw-dO1eRKpiNV8uByOHEBDlnDbBb0WT392yBVKseL-9V67qqSKxrhjjiJ0kPlu9sWdGZWO8O_h2qbPMragQ45w/s1600/thelastqueen.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 185px; height: 278px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMiPJ3tWSxDCl5B8Y5YQtR5iIFVIoWOrJLk4lSDY9jIj4Wek3uUZiKXw-dO1eRKpiNV8uByOHEBDlnDbBb0WT392yBVKseL-9V67qqSKxrhjjiJ0kPlu9sWdGZWO8O_h2qbPMragQ45w/s320/thelastqueen.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5551109838955118274" /></a><br /><br /><strong>Author:</strong> C. W. Gortner<br /><strong>Publication Date:</strong> 2006<br /><strong>Length:</strong> 368 pages<br /><strong>Cost:</strong> The list price for the hardcover is $25.00. New copies are available at Amazon for $10.20, and used ones for $4.96, but these are softcovers. The Kindle edition is $8.25.<br /><strong>Where Did I Hear About It:</strong> I found this in the library stacks when I was looking for one of the author's more recently published books.<br /><br /><strong>The Backstory</strong><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitCyMQu8jVB94k6DDC0sq6-W2Bp4kXtJCxgVIA4IH9yVDqXnM3XteCEyIAuhtdjEsIuVfp0nGs9vuBsyzjV8ZnilMLc1-Mkui1JMOqJ4_EjEFz2zre8ePBaOoDP4Ms9kBSk2zxJeDzQQ/s1600/JuanaI.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 199px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitCyMQu8jVB94k6DDC0sq6-W2Bp4kXtJCxgVIA4IH9yVDqXnM3XteCEyIAuhtdjEsIuVfp0nGs9vuBsyzjV8ZnilMLc1-Mkui1JMOqJ4_EjEFz2zre8ePBaOoDP4Ms9kBSk2zxJeDzQQ/s320/JuanaI.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5552048033876667410" /></a><br />The admirably unconventional subject of this novel is Juana I of Castile, better known as Juana la Loca (Juana or Joanna the Mad). Juana lived a dramatically tragic life during which she was pulled between a variety of different self-interested parties. She is known as "the Mad" for a variety of reasons that seem to be at least somewhat fabricated. It is clear, however, that both her husband and her father were intent upon controlling her in order to control the kingdom of Castile, and, unfortunately for Juana, they were largely successful.<br /><br />Juana was born in Toledo in November of 1479, the third child of the famous Ferdinand and Isabella (Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabel of Castile). Ferdinand and Isabella were the power-couple of their day--each of them held their respective kingdoms in their own right, and together, they completed the famous Reconquista of Spain, defeating the Moors who had inhabited the majority of the penninsula since the 8th century and initiating the first steps to unifying the country.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglwDtuN_msGmUNESqTPJ6mddH4Jgkgbgf9nwuOQeCB5QF-mzOQKb2DIQ8_4mmO012npjRvC6buqTHWz55Aq9V6dY6rGf5C70_Wp1aTpFh7oaQq3oTF9uknJi8ZcrY6ekRSiUuBkrO6pQ/s1600/Philipthefair.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 208px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglwDtuN_msGmUNESqTPJ6mddH4Jgkgbgf9nwuOQeCB5QF-mzOQKb2DIQ8_4mmO012npjRvC6buqTHWz55Aq9V6dY6rGf5C70_Wp1aTpFh7oaQq3oTF9uknJi8ZcrY6ekRSiUuBkrO6pQ/s320/Philipthefair.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5552050768052612450" /></a><br />It was no surprise that Ferdinand and Isabella were interested in consolidating their position with other monarchs and dukes of similar standing in Europe. One way they accomplished this was through the political marriages of their children, and none would turn out more significant than Juana's marriage to Philip the Fair of Flanders. Philip was the son of Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian I, and destined to be his heir to his extensive realm. At the time, Philip was acknowledged to be the Duke of Flanders when he married Juana in 1496. During the course of their marriage, they had six children, but the marriage was not a happy one. Philip was rather insecure and subsequently power-hungry. He was also regularly unfaithful to Juana, and this didn't go over well. <br /><br />A series of tragedies transformed Juana from a Spanish Infanta to the heir to the kingdom of Castile. Her brother, her older sister Isabella, and Isabella's young son all died within a few years of each other. Without other brothers or direct male relatives to inherit, Juana became the Castilian heir (her father, Ferdinand, was confined to ruling Aragon after his wife's death). <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7rrf_DqqnDmkfpBSD-b4oai5wnmU7oP7n1zjDkSprbkM0h8nMj4gcRKBOhCBmn5UWSejp5TJsaxx6lp7h7QaYecWOh_O0A5sYV45JRjCu9Vq0nCmi17Zbtx7bdqPmJD5q5WvFYrh-5Q/s1600/Isabella.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 242px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7rrf_DqqnDmkfpBSD-b4oai5wnmU7oP7n1zjDkSprbkM0h8nMj4gcRKBOhCBmn5UWSejp5TJsaxx6lp7h7QaYecWOh_O0A5sYV45JRjCu9Vq0nCmi17Zbtx7bdqPmJD5q5WvFYrh-5Q/s320/Isabella.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5552049470787526626" /></a> Juana's mother, Isabella, died in 1504, leaving Juana queen of Castile with Philip as her consort. This didn't go over well with her father, Ferdinand. Ferdinand married Germaine de Foix, neice of the French king, in the hopes of having other children who could rule both Castile and Aragon (he was unsuccessful). <br /><br />It seems that this is the time when claims that Juana was insane start to materialize. Philip announced that he believed that Juana was unable to govern due to her mental state to the Spanish court in 1506. Ferdinand lost a great deal of support from the Castilian court after he embarked on the French marriage, and he was forced to acknowledge Juana and Philip's authority. However, he also signed an agreement with Philip that stated that Juana was unstable and unable to rule, which could have either been an expression of the truth and the need to provide for legitimate government in Juana's stead through Philip or an expression of Philip's insecurity and desperate bid for power. Philip succumbed to typhoid fever in the summer of 1506, leaving only Juana and her claim. In order to further control her, Ferdinand had her confined to a convent in Tordesillas. <br /><br />After this, Juana was never again directly involved in any events related to Castile. Ferdinand died in 1516 without a male heir. Juana had transformed from his political rival to his successor. Juana was visited by her now adult son, Charles, and she agreed to allow him to rule in her name. He continued her confinement for the rest of her life. It is here that she exhibited symptoms of clinical depression, but this could have easily been caused by her confinement rather than by mental instability. She died there in 1555, only three years before her son, Charles.<br /><br />Images Reference:<br /><br />Juana of Castile by Juan de Flandes, c. 1500<br /><br />Philip of Flanders (Philip the Fair) by the Master of the Magdalen Legend, c. 1500<br /><br />Isabel I of Castile, painter unknown, c. 1485<br /><br /><strong>What About The Book?</strong><br /><br />This was a great read, and I highly recommend it. It was a refreshing change from the nearly endless selection of Tudor historical fiction. The novel is composed from Juana's point of view, and I find this to be an interesting choice made by a male author--very rare indeed. Gortner does an admirable job seeing events from Juana's point of view, but his focus is clearly events rather than delving into the depth of feeling that would truly make Juana a three-dimensional character. On the other hand, the events truly make the story--the reader is enthralled, eager to discover what happens next in this exciting, but tragic, narrative.<br /><br />The author does a good job of casting Juana's character throughout the novel, although her relationship with her parents is a little underdeveloped, and her husband, Philip, had the potential to become a more well-rounded character. Juana's relationships with her mother and father nearly entirely seal her fate, and a greater understanding of these relationships would have made the events that involve these characters more understandable. Her relationship with her mother is woefully underexamined save a few key scenes and letters, and her relationship with her father isn't entirely teased out as fully as it should have been in the latter portion of the novel. In particular, some of her father's actions and decisions at the end of the novel seem out-of-place. In Philip's case, he seems to transform from one exreme to the other without much more than a cursory explanation, and a greater exploration of his character would have made the series of events connected to him appear more realistic.<br /><br />The events are mostly true, although the author's spin on them from Juana's point of view is mostly--if not entirely--interpretive. The author provides a short Afterward at the end of the novel in which he mentions an assessment of how much of the novel was interpreted and how much of it was based on primary sources. I think he is a little liberal in his claim that so much of it was true and so little of it a sign of literary license--there are several elements in the plot that jump out to readers as "probably interpreted" by the author regardless. For example, Juana and Philip had started living apart by the time Juana was declared the new queen of Castile, but Gortner paints a picture of an abused wife physically and emotionally violated by her husband and nearly literally held as a prisoner in her own house. It is more likely that Juana had moved away from her husband, plunging into a form of cold indifference. I have to give Gortner credit--he did give a list of further reading at the end of his novel, which is something I don't think I have ever seen before in a work of historical fiction. <br /><br />Gortner has a soft spot for Juana. It is clear that he doesn't believe that she was truly ever mad, and if she developed a form of madness, it was more explicably a form of depression developed after years of conflict with her family, and after years of confinement. There were several rumors that indicated she was mad, and Gortner attempts to explain those events and incidents in the novel in a way to dispel any assumption she wasn't mentally stable. In fact, because of this, it would help to have a general background in Juana's life and why people thought she was insane--and Gortner's suggestions for further reading are probably the best sources. <br /><br />The novel is extremely enjoyable and a read that is nearly impossible to put down. The story of Juana of Castile is truly evidence that historical truth provides a much more engrossing story than fabricated fiction.<br /><br /><strong>Rating:</strong> Between an 8.5 and a 9. It was a fantastic story.<br /><strong>Buy It or Borrow It:</strong> Since the softcover is so reasonably priced, it would probably be worthwhile to buy it. If you do, you'll have the list of further reading availble to you. My recommendation is to read the book, then read one or two of the suggestions the author makes, and later, reread the book. Trust me, it is that interesting.pilgrimchickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13808106043964544413noreply@blogger.com2