NetGalley ARC | Castles of England

I received a free digital ARC from the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.

Rating ⭐⭐⭐1/2

I love a good ghost story, but that is not what I was expecting here so it kind of threw me off. I was expecting a book about the history of castles in England, from their beginnings up to present day. We get that here, but we also gets tons of stories of mysteries - unsolved murders, deaths of prisoners, executions, and so on.

I was anticipating much more in regards to physical histories and family histories, and there really was so much more that was paranormal. You might think it is weird that I am so hung up on that part, but it's just not what I was looking for from this book, so I think that's why I was honestly kind of annoyed.

The origin of the castle, or castellum in Latin, is so deeply imbedded in the history of England. You can't discuss the country's history without an in-depth focus on these structures. Castles are part of the landscape, and have been for 1,000 years. To not see one is far more strange.

Luckily there are so many to choose from, and whether you prefer crumbling ruins or castles that transport you back to the middle ages into a still-functioning relic of the period, everyone will find some castles of interest here.

Even this review is hard to write and I am struggling with it. The book just wasn't what I expected, and had such a heavy focus on the myths and legends, usually paranormal. I wanted to know more about architecture, builders, etc. I would have also loved more photographs.

NetGalley ARC | Usurpers: A New Look at Medieval Kings

 

I received a free digital ARC from the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.

Rating ⭐⭐⭐

Short version: Yes they're all usurpers and you don't need to read this book to know that.

Long version: 

I really struggled for a bit with how to rate this one. The title is a bit misleading if you go into it thinking there will be new ideas or documents or things of that nature. However, if you take it at face value that this is simply a new book on a set of kings who were absolutely usurpers, then the title fits. Every single one of the kings discussed in the book took a throne that was not rightfully theirs. So, I appreciated another look at the people and periods, because those eras of history are most certainly my jam, but there is nothing new actually added to the conversation.

The author looks at six kings: William the Bastard, Stephen of Blois, Henry Bolingbroke (Henry IV), Edward IV, Richard III, and Henry Tudor (Henry VII). Anyone with knowledge of those periods can without a doubt say that yes, everyone single one of these men took a crown that was not theirs.

1. William took the crown from Harold II (Harold Godwinson), who had been chosen by the Witan upon the death of Edward the Confessor. Sorry, not sorry William; forcing people to swear oaths under duress makes them not binding, you big jerk.

2. Stephen of Blois took the crown from his cousin Empress Matilda, whose father Henry I had twice made his nobility swear to support her claim after the death of his only legitimate heir William Adelin aboard the White Ship - or rather, in the water when the White Ship sank and though he had initially survived, he attempted to rescue his half sister. His small boat was swamped and he drowned along with everyone else, save one cook.

3. Henry Bolingbroke, son of John of Gaunt, took the crown from his cousin Richard II when Richard II was deposed.

4. Edward IV took the crown from Henry VI, lost it to him, then took it back again and had Henry VI murdered in order to retain it for good. Major dick move, but not unsurprising for the times. Henry VI is the king I have always felt the most terribly for, having never done anything to warrant his murder.

5. Richard III, don't even get me started on this guy. He imprisoned his nephews, including the RIGHTFUL king, Edward V, and likely had them killed. Margaret Beaufort wasn't behind their deaths, fuck off with that nonsense.

6. Henry Tudor's army faced Richard III's and we all know how that turned out. Richard had it coming, but even after his death on the battlefield, Henry did not have a strong claim. The actual next in line who should have been crowned was Edward Plantagenet, Earl of Warwick. You know, the kid who had been imprisoned because his claim was stronger, who was eventually executed along with Lambert Simnel on Henry's orders. Warwick was the son of George, Duke of Clarence - brother of Edward IV and Richard III who was murdered, on his brothers' orders for plotting treason against Edward.

As you can see, there is a TON of history here, and a lot of it overlapping in the last three chapters of later years (Edward, Richard, Henry) because of how entwined their stories are. Yet the author never really digs too deeply in and the text did become repetitive at times because of how connected they were. But there is also no new insight or analysis either. It's a straight-forward history, but lacking depth.

For a book that was aiming in part to look at what chroniclers of the time said about each of these new kings seizing a throne, there was actually very little from any chroniclers, if at all. I find that very curious, seeing as how those who wrote of each court would certainly have had strong opinions whether they were in favor or not. Thomas More is a prime example of the propaganda machine at work for the Tudors - though again, let's be realistic: if it looks like a horse and sounds like a horse, Richard had the boys murdered. More certainly embellished quite a bit; Richard was a product of his time, but with the murders of his nephews he went too far. Rumors spread around London very quickly once the boys were no longer seen. There is no way Richard did not hear those rumors. All he would have had to do is produce the children in order to stop the gossip. He didn't, because he couldn't.

That was a tangent I realize, but true nonetheless. As for chroniclers in the previous eras, they all had opinions too, and were quite overlooked. I find this curious, and altogether odd. The men (always men) writing at the time produced much in the way of, well, chronicles. Not including passages is weird.

Overall, it is not a terrible read. It is one I think I would suggest to someone who doesn't have much knowledge of the periods and is looking for a starting point. Especially during the Wars of the Roses, things get quite complicated so who knows, the repetition of material might help sort things out. But for those like me who already have a firm background, this is a pass.

1066 Turned Upside Down

Rating: 5 Stars

I will be the first to admit that I am incredibly to hard to please when it comes to historical fiction. I love history so much, and consider myself pretty well-read on the subjects I love the most, that historical fiction kind of irritates me because it is authors making up conversations and shoving them in the mouths of people I admire. So, you imagine my trepidation over not just historical fiction, but ALTERNATIVE history. Under normal circumstances I could not imagine anyone messing with my Anglo-Saxons, Plantagenets, or Tudors, but to make their lives something completely different?!

And yet.

I am fascinated by the Anglo-Saxons. From King Alfred, to Aethelstan, to Edward the Confessor, and all those in between. So too, does this fascination extend to the short-lived rule of the last two Anglo-Saxon kings: Harold Godwinson and Edgar (grandson of Edmund Ironside). While kingship was generally heredity, ultimately it was the Witan who chose the next king. What accounts we have indicate the Witan chose Harold, though he was only Earl of Wessex and not of royal blood. Edgar was still a teenager at the time, but the son of Edward the Exile, who was Ironside's younger son. Harold was killed at the Battle of Hastings and from there the Witan elected Edgar as king even though he was considered too young to rule (which is why they'd chosen Harold in the first place). 

I have a love-hate relationship with the Normans, because I despise the fact that William the Bastard invaded the island I love so dearly and wrecked havoc on the people, towns, and countryside. On the other hand, without William coronation, would the Plantagenet dynasty ever have come to rule? Would we even know Eleanor of Aquitaine's name? Therein lies the dilemma. 

I do not believe Harold a saint. It is entirely possible he had Edgar's father Edward the Exile - not to be confused with Edward the Confessor - murdered shortly after The Exile and his young family arrived in England on a summons from The Confessor. The Exile and his family had been living in Hungary for many years, he having settled there after the also-mysterious death of his father, Edmund Ironside - after which The Exile and his older brother, also named Edmund, were spirited out of the country and Cnut's grasp. But by the meager accounts we do have he was a just king who ruled well in his nine month reign and likely could have been good, maybe great. William, on the other hand, insisted he had claim to the throne and was determined to fight for it, reminding everyone that Harold swore an oath to him a few years earlier to support William's claim to the throne. It is very likely that could have happened, but that it was sworn under duress and Harold did so only to ensure that he and his men would live and make it back home. A promise can hardly be considered valid if the person swearing the oath is threatened with death. Unfortunately, while William was pressing his claim from Normandy, Harold's good-for-nothing (and some say insane) brother Tostig was tagging along with the mighty Harald Hardrada, King of Norway, also making his claim to the throne. Harold and his men claimed a huge victory at Stanford Bridge (along with the lives of Tostig and Harald, the last of the mighty Viking warriors), but after that is where things fall apart. Hearing of William's arrival, Harold marches his men straight for him at Hastings, without waiting for back-up or to give his men some rest before the next bloody engagement.

You might wonder what all this has to do with the book, and I will say, well, everything - because the events as I have described above are how history actually went, as far as we can ever really know. The premise of this wonderful little gem is that a series of authors provide their own takes on the year 1066 and COMPLETELY REWRITE HISTORY, sometimes in the most glorious of ways. Ways that made my heart so happy, that for a moment seemed so real. 1066 is one of the most important events in the history of Europe, if not the world. So may paths might have been altered if any number of events had a different outcome. The possibilities are almost endless and in this book we see several of those play out.

So, if I have thoroughly convinced you of how crazy I am about the Anglo-Saxons, then you can believe that this is a must-read. The book is broken up month by month accounts of how events might have occurred instead in 1066. A couple authors contributed more than once, so it was also interesting to compare one of their versions to another. One of the things I really appreciated was a brief summary of the actual history of that month that occurred before each new story. I feel like this is especially important for those who do not know a lot about 1066, so they are able to differentiate between what really occurred and what is a product of that particular author's imagination. It is also nice for people like me who do have that knowledge base but might need a quick refresher of a specific event. In addition, after each story there are two discussion questions to make you ponder further repercussions of the event you just read about. I feel like this was a nice touch, because as you start thinking about changing one outcome, it makes you realize how many other things afterward might be altered as well.

While the entire collection of stories is strong, there are a few that really stood out to me for various reasons and those are the stories I will highlight.

January 1066 begins with the story 'To Crown a King' by Helen Hollick. I appreciated this one right off the bat because it addressed Edgar directly. So often when I am reading books purporting to be the 'history of England', Ironside's death is glossed over and his sons and grandsons are often not mentioned at all. Ironside had been king of England, co-ruling with Cnut, sort of, when he died suddenly. He also happened to be the older half-brother of Edward the Confessor, the one who could have saved everyone a lot of trouble if he would have managed to have a couple children with his wife (not coincidentally, Harold Godwinson's sister) before he died. So, being that Edgar was Ironside's grandson, he was the true heir. But as I mentioned above in my not-so-brief history lesson, the Witan ultimately chose the king and Harold was their pick. Not so in this story though. Edgar voiced his strong argument and was ultimately chosen as England's next king, bypassing Harold altogether.

Another story of particular interest to me was "Emperor of the North" by Joanna Courtney. because it is an option I had never really considered before. My focus in all of my reading about 1066 had always revolved around Harold defeating William at Hastings. I had never before considered what might happen had Harald defeated Harold at Stanford, weeks BEFORE Hastings. But this is exactly what we see happen in this one. As a result of that victory for Harald (and unfortunately, Tostig), the Norwegians eventually succeed in taking the whole of France by 1070. Harald was no longer King, but Emperor. Still not an outcome I would have wanted, but intriguing nonetheless.

The biggest surprise (in two ways) came for me during the May/June 1066 story by Richard Dee. It is called "If You Changed One Thing" and dealt with time-travel. That was the first surprise. The second surprise was that I enjoyed it. I would have to say this might be my favorite story of the whole collection, which is kind of a big deal because they're all great and all have many strengths. This story is told from the perspective of a teacher talking with his students. They are discussing 1066 and the idea of going back in time to change the outcome, but then how that might impact their lives, if they would exist - basically the Butterfly Effect. A boy in the class says that his father's work involves a time machine and he would be able to go back to that fateful battle. His teacher does not believe him...and I will not spoil the rest. Just know that it has the perfect outcome, which also makes it a most-favorite.

Another unusual story is to be found in July 1066, "A Roman Intervenes" by Alison Morton. This was another completely unexpected idea that I think turned out well for the most part. In this author's re-imagining, there is a small country called Roma Nova, entirely independent - basically, Rome survives in this tiny little country where the people still worship Roman gods and they play secret and not-so-secret roles in keeping the peace so to speak. Again, I do not want to give too much away because it is a really wonderful little story, but the ending is quite pleasing for the pro-Anglo-Saxon sect.

There is so much history here and I really want to touch on every single story because they all paint very realistic portraits of so many outcomes, so many what-ifs, and I want to talk about ALL OF THEM. But this review is rapidly approaching one of my longest yet and I think that anyone who only has a passing interest in 1066 has given up long ago. So, I'll touch discuss one more. If you are really interested in absolutely EVERY thought I had while reading, you can check out the notes I made in my progress updates on Goodreads. There are 45 altogether. Just a warning.

In the chapter dedicated to the actual month, October 1066, "Hold England Firm" by Joanna Courtney, I will just say it was everything my Anglo-Saxon-lovin' heart could have hoped for in the real battle. If only Harold had rested his men. If only they had waited for reinforcements. If only, if only, if only.

Okay I lied. Sorry. One more story because it again highlighted Edgar as king and in all honesty that is how the succession should have gone anyway (forgive me, Harold, but at least you'd have been alive had they chosen him to begin with). Unfortunately in this story, Harold had still been killed at Hastings and Edgar chosen by the Witan. In November 1066, "The Battle of London Bridge" by GK Holloway, we see Edgar now as king and this makes all the earls around him uneasy, because he is young and untested in battle. They've been through Stanford and Hastings. They do not know if he really has what it takes. I touched on Edgar's back story previously, so I won't repeat it here, but I think some of their fears were legit. Yet Edgar and his father deserve to have their place in history acknowledged, and it is sometimes overlooked in the chaos and drama of the year. When I was first reading this, I thought of the other difficulties his rule might have presented. Off the top of my head I could not recall how old Edgar had been when his family were summoned by Edward the Confessor and thought it had been when he was in his teens. Language certainly would have been a huge barrier. But I went back and did a little research (yes, I research while reading. I am THAT big of a nerd) and found that it is generally accepted that Edgar was in England around 10 years or so. Thus, he would have been able to learn the language and  the customs in that time. I like the issues that arise in this story, the idea that William defeated Harold and was still denied the crown, so he had to save-face with his men so to speak and continue pursuing it anyway - especially after they were promised plenty of plunder. After Edgar and his men are successful in driving back the Normans and defending London, there is a bit of an open-end to the story. At one point it was mentioned that Harold's widow gave birth to a baby boy, so that is something in the back of Edgar's mind. Here he is crowned, rightfully so, yet the dead king's wife has just given birth to her husband's heir - and her brothers happen to be powerful northern earls. That is how the story ends and you are left to imagine what might happen in the ensuing years. Edgar has fended off the Normans, and he might have to do so to his own subjects in the future.

Okay, so I know I have gushed and gushed about how much I adored this book and I do. It is very worthy of those five stars. It is not, however, without its flaws. There were certain phrases used throughout stories that struck me as out of place. Now, I may very well be wrong and these things are totally accurate - just more for me to research! In one story the phrase 'God save the King' was used and I was not sure that was 'a thing' in 1066? I was trying to find out the earliest known use of the phrase but could not find anything that was conclusive. The same thing occurred with the phrase 'step-mother'. I don't know for sure when this became common use and again found nothing conclusive.

Another issue I had was the spelling of names. It was mentioned in the introduction that each auther used the spellings they preferred - and the intro even includes the example of Edith being spelled in various way (Edith, Edyth, Aldytha, Svana, Richenda; 4%). It is confusing enough for newcomers to the subject to sort out all the people who have the same name, but to then have ONE person referred to in so many different ways? I think that could invite confusion. I do understand and respect why the decision was made. On the other hand, I think each story had its own distinct voice, while still meshing well with the others, that a little uniformity could have been a good thing.

So...I guess there is not much else to say except this is a must-read. This is one of THE defining moment in England's history. These tales are superbly imagined and told. And even if you are pro-Norman, you will still find stories of interest to you. Wonderful read, highly recommended.

England: A History

Rating: 2 Stars

Ugh. This was a tough one to get through. The history of England is complicated to begin with. England as we know it didn't really exist until Athelstan, grandson of my buddy Alfred the Great. And even then, it wasn't exactly England yet. It kind of starts with the Norman Conquest of Anglo-Saxon England and then glosses over all the best parts of the island's history that I care about. There was no mention whatsoever of Eleanor of Aquitaine, a mere paragraph about Richard I, and a total whitewashing of John. While I am not a huge fan of ALL Plantagenets, they are highly intriguing and they did rule England for 300 years. Yet, by 40% of the book, we are already at the dawn of Stuart rule by James VI/I. This might seem like a lot at first being devoted to the Plantagenets and Tudors, but you must also consider the fact that the book ends after World War II. That's something else I can't understand but, whatever. It is hardly even worth delving into.

As an aside, it has never been lost on me that the Tudors are in fact, and always have been, Welsh - not English. yet the English seem to overlook this now? And then at the same time looked down on the Welsh? Another thing that has never made any sense to me. 

This quote I did appreciate, in regards to the execution of Mary, Queen of Scots: "...Elizabeth managed to look the other way until the deed was done, and like a true daughter of her house, she saw to it that her secretary, William Davison, took the blame for the execution of Mary's death warrant" (30%). Yep, exactly. Elizabeth is the WORST. The author did not justice to Mary Tudor either, but he seems to approve a bit more of Elizabeth. Either way, nothing he says is particularly positive about any of them.

Where he really lost me: at 48% he called Cromwell the 'greatest Englishman of his century'. Um. No.

Around 55%, the only things keeping me going were: 1) it was written so generally that it was still an incredibly breezy read. It was not terribly specific, and not very detailed either. 2) At the time I was also operating under the assumption that eventually we'd get to the House of Windsor, William, and Harry. Especially Harry. You can imagine my disappointment then when, as I mentioned earlier, the books ends after WWII.

89%: Blah Blah British Imperialism, snooooze.

So, I guess have at it but I can't say I really recommend this one. The history of England is far too vast and complicated for this slim a volume - even one that ends after WWII. Don't take this one too seriously if you do give it a shot.

Kings & Queens of England, a Dark History: 1066 to Present Day

Rating: 1.5 Stars

Review:

I will keep this short and not so sweet because this book was not good. I try not to, but I sometimes can not help but take offense when I see historical figures I love so dearly and/or highly respect either much-maligned or simply presented wholly inaccurately by an author who could not bother to do five seconds of research. I like the 'Dark History' series in general, though it is nothing spectacular and you will find no new information contained in them. But what I found here was worse. This book was gossipy and sensationalized. it was poorly written and riddled with inaccuracies. There is nothing 'dark' about this history that is flat out wrong in many places. She refers to Catherine Parr as Henry VIII's "Finally, an enduring love" as one heading, which is laughable, considering she wanted to marry Seymour all along. Anne of Cleves was apparently "ugly, skinny and loud-mouthed" - news to me since I did not know you could be a loud-mouth in a country where you did not even speak the language. She is especially nasty to two Scots in particular, Mary and then her son James VI. First, Mary is described as being an, "ignorant, foolish, indiscreet airhead" who "managed to do almost everything wrong and was certainly not the queen 16th century Scotland needed." This could not be more wrong. Without a doubt, Mary made some very stupid decisions. But by all accounts in the short years she did rule, she worked to maintain a balance between her Protestant-turning country and herself. Much has been written about Mary not enjoying her studies but that does not make her an airhead and she was still well-spoken and educated. Her son James does not fair much better. The author refers to him as "creepy", with "spindly legs" a tongue "too big for his mouth...He drooled. He did not wash very often...He looked scruffy because he dressed so badly." It has been documented time and again that James looked oddly in his dress due to the many layers he wore to protect against an assassin. Yes, apparently his tongue was awkward and he was awkward but come on. All this book amounts to is a trashy gossip magazine in hardcover form. PASS!

The Norman Conquest of England

Rating: 4 Stars

Review:

I grabbed this one for cheap at Half Price Books in the World History section a few months ago and finally got around to. It is a quick read about a subject very near and dear to my heart, so when I quickly realized it is geared toward a younger audience, I didn't even mind. Sometimes it is nice to read something quick and easy like this about a topic one is already well-acquainted with, it is like a catching-up conversation with an old friend.

There is certainly nothing new here in terms of the battles themselves. The author does a fantastic job covering this complex issue in an easy way for a younger audience to understand. Not easy, considering all parties involved.

A modern fact I was pleased to learn is that since 2003, King Harold has been celebrated with his own day at Waltham Abbey, where a yearly festival offers a variety of events for visitors, such as crafts, music, medieval food, and weapons displays. I find this especially important, given the  controversy surrounding the Norman Invasion. I do believe that even if Harold swore an allegiance to William while stranded in Normandy, what choice did he have? He surely would have been held captive if he did not. Whether or not King Edward (the Confessor) had chosen Harold as his successor, the Witan had to confirm the appointment and it seems that they did in fact approve of Harold becoming the next king of England. By all accounts that come down to us through the centuries, he was a strong leader and it is interesting to think often about how different England might look today had the invasion not been successful.

The book does go into some detail about this idea, and specifically looks at the Bayeux Tapestry and its importance after the battle. But because of the short length there is not room for any real in-depth exploration of the possibilities, and no mention at all of the Aethelings - Edmund Ironside's sons who were rightful heirs by blood.

In addition to chapters detailing life in Anglo-Saxon England, Kings of England, the Invasion, the aftermath, and so on, there is a plethora of resources in the index for young scholars who are interested in further research. There is information about primary source documents, sections of the Bayeux Tapestry in Latin and the translations for certain panels, a timeline of events from B.C. and the first people on the island, a glossary, and even a short section on some of our modern words and where in the old English that they came from. Word play like that is always interesting to me so I was glad to see something like that in a book geared toward a younger audience, as this is not something they might typically learn.

Overall, this is something that would be primarily aimed at middle or high schoolers, depending on their reading level. For anyone already familiar with this topic, and older readers, there won't be much in the way of new information. Still, I can recommend it for those with interest but little knowledge of the Invasion.

The Tower: The Tumultuous History of the Tower of London from 1078

Rating: 3 Stars - Did Not Finish

Review:

I had to keep reminding myself that this edition was published in 1979. It was not easy and I often found myself frustrated with some of the things Wilson wrote as fact. On the other hand, he also puts forth some of those same sentiments in more recent books, so, there's that to deal with as well (he is NOT a fan of Mary Tudor). As a result, I waver back and forth between two and three stars. The reason I did not finish this one is not due to the dryness of the writing, but to lack of interest in the periods following the reign of James VI/I. I did give it a go, but decided there are too many other books waiting for me.

The text was good, not great. Much of that is owed to the fact that it was written so long ago and the way we look at these eras is quite different, even from the way historians viewed them 40 years ago. I feel like this text would be much stronger if it was updated - not only to reflect more accurate facts as we know them now about those early periods, but so the Tower can be presented now up to it current status and function. As an aside, it still pains me that when Mom and I were in London as part of our UK Extravaganza, we had such short time in London itself that we were not able to see the Tower. This is, without a doubt, #2 on my list of attractions to visit (#1 encompassing any and every place still in existence connected to Eleanor of Aquitaine, of course.)

The many factual inaccuracies were distracting, despite my own attempt to remember it was 40 years old. For example, Wilson refers to de Burgh as being the man who held the most authority in Henry III's reign, due to him being an experienced soldier and administrator. To that I had to say, "Um, helloooo, ever heard of this man by the name of WILLIAM MARSHAL?!" I do have quite a soft spot in my heart for that ol' soldier and always like to see him get his due.

Moving on to the Tudor reign, there were a few issues I took with statements Wilson made as well. Now, I have never made it a secret that have no good feelings about Anne Boleyn. Catherine will always be the rightful and true queen to me, as Mary was always the rightful heir. That does mean that I support everything Mary did during her reign, but I do think everything that happened to her during her childhood once Henry initiated the divorce need to be weighed greatly in understanding how that impacted her. No one can really be surprised in how tightly she clung to her faith and viewed Catholicism as the only religion, given its treatment in her lifetime as a means to an end for Henry to get what he wanted. I know this is not a popular opinion among some and that is fine, but Wilson's assessment of Mary's reign as an "appalling blunder" by the English when they supported Mary instead of her cousin Lady Jane Grey is inaccurate in my eyes. Given a closer and less biased look, there were many aspects of Mary's reign that actually proved quite successful. While that is another debate for another post and I won't go into detail here, I might recommend The First Queen of England: The Myth of Bloody Mary for anyone interested in what I am suggesting. Continuing along this path, I was confused when Wilson states that Catherine Parr died in childbirth "or probably before". Everything I have read thus far indicates she died after giving birth to a daughter, who also did not live long - perhaps a year or two. I am curious as to where Wilson got this idea and if that was accepted as fact in the 1970s, where new information came from since then to change what we know now. He also cites tuberculosis as the cause of death for Edward, which gave way to Mary's reign. While it is certainly one of the theories, there have been others put forth as well. Again I wonder if this could be that TB was accepted in the 1970s and only with new information coming to light have we changed our thinking?

There are positives to the book, do not get me wrong. I found the illustrations included to be useful. Another reason I would like to see a new edition to the book would be to see new photographs of the Tower added in comparison. It would be very interesting to see drawings of the original structure, compared to how it looks now.

I realize that the issues I have touched on had more to do with the people connected to the Tower than the Tower itself. All in all, this is because this book was as much about the people who inhabited the the fortress as the buildings themselves. This I can appreciate, as it covered all of the periods in England's history that are among my most favorite (and more - if you have been reading my reviews for a while, you know I don't have much interest beyond the reign of James VI/I). I wish there would be an update, though if you can keep in mind the age, then I can recommend with some hesitancy. It is very dry at times after all and that could be very off-putting for those who are less interested in the times.

Citadels of Power: The Castle in History and Archeology

Rating: 5 Stars

Review:

So, I love castles. I love looking at pictures of them, watching documentaries about them, reading books about them and, above all, seeing them in person. I've been lucky enough to see a handful so far in the UK and Ireland, and can not wait to visit more in the future.

Naturally then, when I see what I think is a book about castles, I have to give it a read. I found this in the library catalog and reserved it immediately, not paying attention to the 'audio' label until later. No biggie, I figured, I can do a book on cd - then Eleanor can learn too! So, imagine my surprise to find it was not actually a book on cd, but a lecture series by Professor Finan. So, I guess technically I should not be reviewing it here because it is not a book, but it was wonderful!

Now, it was not perfect by any means, and there were portions that were somewhat repetitive, but I still enjoyed this very much. The lecture covered a variety of topics, ranging from the different kinds of castles, their place in society and the landscape, as well as castles specific to England, Wales, Ireland, Scotland, and castles built in the Holy Land by various Crusaders. I found that I knew many facts presented already, though was not nearly as familiar with the earthen and timber castles as presented in the second lecture.

Additionally, Professor Finan clearly cares very deeply about the subjects he is presenting, and even says that the last lecture pertaining to the end of castle-building is his least favorite because he loves the topic so much. While he is not necessarily the most exciting lecturer to listen to, it is worthwhile to hear the material he presents.

There is also a study guide included that has summaries, questions, suggested readings, other books of interest, and suggested websites for each of the 14 lectures. These are available through the company that produces the lecture series (free, but with a shipping charge of course), and I am considering ordering one.

Overall, highly recommended. Very interesting series and I am curious to see what other lectures are offered by The Modern Scholar.

As always, here are MY favorite castles (all photos taken by me in 2009/2010)...

Inside the gate of Stirling Castle (Scotland, 2009)

Edinburgh Castle (Scotland, 2009)

At Windsor Castle (England, 2009)

Blarney Castle (Ireland, 2010)

Malahide Castle (Ireland, 2010)

Bunratty Castle (Ireland, 2010)

(The remains of) Dublin Castle (Ireland, 2010)

London: A History

Author: Francis Sheppard

Rating: 3.5 Stars

Review:

Naturally I found the early sections of the book far more interesting, as they pertained to the periods in England's history that I know and love so well. Unfortunately those sections as a whole only made up the first roughly third of the book, so it took a little more willpower to continue after saying goodbye to my beloved Anglo-Saxons, Plantagenets, and Tudors in regards to their relationships with London. I generally enjoy city biographies but I think what made this one so different for me is that I am also highly interested in very specific time periods in England, so later chapters (mainly from the Stuarts after James I and beyond) felt much heavier and slower to me, despite of course the writing style changing not at all.

It is interesting to me to watch cities slowly evolve into the places we know them as today. Having been to London myself, albeit an incredibly short venture due to a long delay out of Edinburgh, I can't even imagine it being anything than the bustling city it is today. I can't wait to go back and spend the time there that the city deserves, to see all the places still standing where so many of these great and terrible leaders stood, worked, slept, etc.

While the Victorian and Edwardian eras were more than a bit sluggish for me, my interest was piqued at the transformation of the city during the German air raids of WWII. So much of my past study of WWII focused on Germany, I truly had no idea the devastation and loss of life inflicted on London. It amazes me that so many palaces and castles survived, while countless citizens were left homeless. I can't even imagine sleeping in a bunk bed in the subway. Like many, I might have just taken the risk of sleeping at home.

Overall, this is a highly researched, thus very academic, work. At times even the periods of most interest to me were dry. Still, it's very informative and I can say I do recommend it.

The Ring and the Crown: A History of Royal Weddings 1066-2011

Rating: 4 Stars

Review:

While I have said in the past I am not terribly interested in the monarchy much beyond James I (and even that is shaky at best), I LOVE weddings. Maybe I should have been a wedding planner?

Anyway, I thoroughly enjoyed this book the whole way through, though of course the section devoted to my most favorite time period was considerably shorter, as they all lived and wedded 500 years ago or more.

Each author contributes a chapter, following events in chronological order - I even made it through those Hanover weddings. I must say though, I am becoming more interested in Queen Victoria (but don't worry Queen Eleanor, you'll always be my favorite!) This book is interesting on many levels, not just the marriages themselves, but how fashion has changed from the time William and Matilda wed, until now.

The last chapter details weddings from 1961-2011, ending with the engagement of William and Kate. There is of course ample space devoted to William's parents and it is almost impossible to look at the photos of their wedding day and not feel so terribly for Diana. I never knew until reading this book that the night before their wedding, Charles told Diana he did not love her. I can't even imagine how difficult it is for William and Harry to not only know these things about their parents' marriage themselves, but then to know that the whole world knows these private matters as well. I do not envy them in that department at all (I do, however, envy the fact that they live in England, have access to all these amazing historical places).

This is an easy read, I finished in just a couple hours. I would certainly recommend it to anyone who is interested in the history of the monarchy and especially in the weddings of course.

Great Britain's Royal Tombs: A Guide to the Lives & Burial Places of British Monarchs

Rating: 3 Stars

Review:

I must admit I have a fascination with tombs, particularly the effigies and ornate designs dating back from the time of the Tudors and earlier. I was intrigues by this book and was certainly not disappointed by the photographs of these splendid monuments to the kings and queens I have read so much about. While revolutions can be a good thing, I curse those who destroyed the tombs and scattered the remains of so many! (I mean, I get it, freedom, but was disturbing the dead necessary? I even get dismantling some of the most elaborate ones as symbol of power of the monarchy, they could be rebuilt I guess ((still not cool though, jerks)), but scattering the bones of Eleanor of Aquitaine?! Seriously, it pisses me off, for lack of wanting to be more polite about it. Although, I did find the fact interesting when the author mentioned it is a widely held belief that the location of Eleanor's, Richard's, and Henry's remains are actually known. He cited fear in a drop in tourism as the reason for excavations not being carried out. Yet, if the excavations were done, couldn't the remains be placed properly back at Fontevraud? This is Eleanor we are talking about! (Warning, the website is in French and the translation is awful. Just look at the pretty pictures). You'd think tourism would INCREASE if the remains were restored to their proper burial place (regardless, Eleanor and I will be visiting some day when she is old enough to understand and appreciate the history behind her name. Hopefully by that time France will have righted this grievous wrong).

While the tombs and effigies displayed in the photographs are themselves beautiful, the text leaves something to be desired. I understand this is more about the pictures than the text, but for someone who is new to this history, they would not be able to recognize incorrect information, spelling (Marshall instead of Marshal, as in William Marshal, the greatest knight in the history of England. Seriously, come on), dates (citing something happening in a later year for the queen's 'demise' two years prior - um, what), and so on. They would, however, likely also be distracted by the assortment of things the editor missed - a comma in the middle of a year instead of after, awkward wording in many places (stating how it took three days for Queen Elizabeth to order the flag at Windsor be 'raised to half staff'. Either the author meant 'lowered', or flags in England fly at the bottom of the flagpole. I looked back my photos from when Mom and I visited Windsor and there is no flag at all on the flagpole that day.

(Taken by me at Windsor Castle; November, 2009)

(Taken by me at Windsor Castle; November, 2009)

I am not sure why, as large portions of the castle were closed to tourist, since Queen Elizabeth was busy knighting people that day. I'd think the flag would be flying with her there, but am not sure why it was not. Now, any Google of Windsor will show a flag flying normally as one would expect, so...?)

Anyway. There are still interesting tidbits to be learned, and of course the main focus of the book is the tombs themselves, though the author does give an introduction to each House, beginning with the House of Normandy, right up to the House of Windsor. I was curious that there was no photo of Edward VI's tomb, perhaps he was not afford an elaborate one due to his age and shortened rule? I just thought that as the long-sought male heir of Henry VIII, there would be something. I also learned that, while it has long been assumed that the bones discovered in the 1600s buried under a staircase in the Tower were those of Edward V and his younger brother Richard, Duke of York, coffins of two unidentified children were discovered in a previously unknown crypt that was connected to the vault where Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville were interred. Much like the French in regards to Eleanor, Henry, and Richard, nothing had been done, there was no inspection, and the tomb was simply resealed. If those coffins, in fact, hold the bodies of the princes, then who the heck were the other two children buried under the stairs?

Overall, the photographs were the best part, and the focus. It is worth it to brave the distractions of the spelling/editing/factual errors presented in the text to see some of the most magnificent burial places of these great kings and queens. And for history nerds like myself, I can not wait to some day see them in person.

1066: The Year of the Conquest

Rating: 5 Stars

Review:

So fantastically written, I easily could have read it cover to cover in one sitting. Even knowing the outcome ahead of time, the story is still so engrossing that you can't help but keep turning the page.

I quite agree with Howarth's assessment of the principal characters; how he'd have liked King Harold, felt sorry for Tostig, and been terrified of William. Echoing my earlier comment, I'm not sure why he disliked Edward the Confessor so, perhaps I need to read more about King Edward. Harald is quite an enigma to me still, and I'd like to read more about the "last of the great Vikings".

Here you're given a much more objective view of Harold and there doesn't seem to be much to dislike about him. Nor does there seem to be any indication that he'd have been anything but a fair and just King. You can't help but feel sorry for him, once he saw the papal banner that William carried, and given the terrible way in which he died. His behavior compared from Stamford Bridge to Hastings is so markedly different, one almost has to assume his confidence was completely gone and the he believes he'd already lost and that God was against him. You have to feel sadness too, for the numerous Englishmen who continued to suffer once William was crowned (though they certainly suffered before then as well, once Harold was defeated).

It's intriguing to think how differently England would have developed if Harold had won Hastings and William had been killed or at least been sent packing.