Princesses Behaving Badly: Real Stories from History — Without the Fairy-Tale Endings

Rating: 2 Stars

I originally rated this book 3 stars, but time away from it has given me a better perspective and I am debating between 1 and 2 stars even. Really, this book was not very good. Perhaps I felt inclined to give it the original 3 stars because within the first chapter there was a subsection about fierce queens from Antiquity and a page devoted to Boudicca. I would have liked to see a blurb about Eleanor of Aquitaine (though she did not live during Antiquity, I know), because she certainly bucked tradition in her life time with the way she took control of her life to end her first marriage and begin her second within weeks of returning home to Aquitaine (and most likely, she had been planning it long before).

But the more I thought about it, and looked back over the few notes I took while reading, I had to accept the fact that while parts of the book were entertaining, by and large the princesses were never really made to feel like real people. The author relied a lot on the myths surrounding these women and did not do a decent enough job separating the two. I guess I would have been more willing to rate the book higher had the two been more clearly divided. Perhaps even presenting the myths first and then following up with what was true in the myth, why the myth grew to overtake the facts we do know, etc. But there was none of that and so the author does herself a disservice, and her readers as well.

Immediately in the introduction, I had some misgivings about the book. Even in the table of contents, the author referred to Isabella of France (wife of Edward II, more on these two in a minute) as a she-wolf. It was at that point I already expected much of the book to be a regurgitation of gossip and nonsense. She-wolf was not a compliment at that time, and using it now without explanation is no better.

While still in the introduction, I found it kind of ridiculous that the author would call her book 'Princesses Behaving Badly', and then rant against Disney Princesses and these cultural and gender norms that exist in society now. Why would these princesses in the book be considered to be 'behaving badly' then, unless the expectation of the behavior was the opposite, and more Disney-like? The message there is already mixed, and nothing is ever done to clarify it.

Back to Isabella and Edward II. Edward was not the king his father and grandfather were, nor his son Edward III would become. I have always felt a bit bad for him, as he enjoyed activities that were considered beneath a king, but he made his own problems as well when he let his favorites sway his opinion and policy. Piers Gaveston was a terrible influence on Edward and there will be speculation until the end of time about whether or not Edward was gay and Piers was his lover. What matters in that bit of information is that Edward never bothered to at least pretend that Isabella mattered, and from their wedding day on it was clear she was of no importance to him - considering the fact that he gave the jewels she'd brought with her to Gaveston, and Gaveston sat with Edward at the coronation, in what should have been Isabella's place.

This quote was one of a few that really sealed the deal for me on how untrustworthy the book is:

"When Gaveston was around, Edward was worse than useless, barely able to hold a conversation, much less govern. When Gaveston wasn't around, Edward was a wreck" (page 79).

This seems a bit...sensational, don't you think? I was interested to read the chapter on Isabella, but it ended up just being a rehashing of rumors and gossip. In looking at the bibliography for this chapter, I found that the author only used one book, Helen Castor's 'She-Wolves: The Women Who Ruled England Before Elizabeth'. That in itself is kind of shady, to use only one source. and Castor's book is definitely not sensational and gossipy. I mean, it has its moments, but it was still well-researched and I liked it. Isabella's behavior was more then justified, by our standards today anyway. As far as we can ever really know, Isabella and her lover, Roger Mortimer took power and eventually Edward II died in captivity under dubious circumstances. At the time her behavior was considered unacceptable, and that is why once their son, Edward III came to power, he had Mortimer executed and Isabella basically under house arrest for the rest of her life.

Basically, the book started out decent, but even after the rough introduction I had concerns. By page 55 when the author referred to Tuthmosis III as 'T-III', I just could not take her seriously. There were some solid stories but over all this is more entertainment than academic. That is not a bad thing necessarily, but it is problematic when myths are presented as fact. If there was not enough factual information about someone available to us today, then perhaps that is a sign that they should not be the subject of a book.

Take it or leave it, but keep in mind its shortcomings.

The Edge of the Empire: A Journey to Britannia: From the Heart of Rome to Hadrian's Wall

Rating: 4 Stars

I received this book via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.

I. Loved. This. Book.

Right off the bat I appreciated the use of maps with this book. I am a visual person so I am fond of books that do make good use of maps and photographs. As you begin your journey in Rome and meander your way toward Hadrian's Wall, there are maps along the way to help you trace your journey. I was frustrated by the lack of photos, but naturally as you made your way farther and farther from Rome, there is less that survived elsewhere - especially in Britain of course - to mark all the places the empire expanded to and flourished.

One thing I noticed right away was how well-researched this book is. I like that it is written in the present-tense, as if you, the reader, are making this journey yourself. There were tons of tidbits along the way, things I had never given any thought to, really, despite my deep interest in Roman times and Roman Britain in particular. For example, it would be interesting for us to really know why emperors restricted which kinds of foods could be sold at bars or cook shops along the way. The author suggests that it was because kitchens were such fire hazards, as they were often located in the center of town and it would be kind of a big effing deal if a fire broke out. Another possibility was that the fumes were too nasty or there was simply too much smoke.

Throughout this journey, you travel both by land and by sea. I found the sea portion of the travels just as interesting as that by land - though I was disgusted on many levels to learn that travelers would use tombs as bathrooms. Seriously. Yuck. And so disrespectful. But, back to the sea travel. I thought it was interesting that the ships leaving Roman ports did not actually have accommodations for passengers. I wasn't expecting the Titanic or anything, but basically passengers had to find space on deck or below to sleep. For all the advances ancient Rome made, they couldn't figure out how to build a ship with cabins or some sleeping areas? Seriously?

I find learning about the whole Roman Empire kind of daunting. I mean, it was this vast, sprawling empire and there is so much history, even I almost get bored just because there is SO MUCH to learn. I think this is why I focus more on Roman Britain (plus, Bouddica. Duh...And literally as I typed her name, I realize I spell it differently almost every time. Looking up how I have it labeled for my blog posts, I spelled it 'Boudicca'. Oops. But I have seen it spelled so many different ways and no one can even agree if she was actually real, let alone how to spell her name).

Anyway.

My purpose for mentioning my intimidation by the Roman Empire was to illustrate how little I know about the actual governing and politics. As you are, so to speak, traveling to the edge of the Roman empire to take up your governorship at Hadrian's Wall, it was interesting to learn some detail about the job itself. Imperial Governors had no set term limits. They would be assigned to their post for as long or as short a time as the Emperor chooses. Once the governor has arrived at his post, he must stay until his tour is over. He is not allowed to leave the boundaries of his province for any time. Even if he were conducting official business, referred to as "the fulfilling of a vow", he is not allowed to spend a single night away from his province.

Once we were on the road to Londinium, I was especially interested in this section and beyond because, of course, I love all things related to Britain before 1603. I mean, I don't love Elizabeth I, but that is neither here nor there in relation to this text. This was by far my favorite section, though I really enjoyed the book as a whole. As we enter Londinium, I decided I want my own Transport Officer because I still don't know where most of the stuff in Omaha is after living here for a number of years. To be fair though, I do not actually live in Omaha-proper, nor do I even really care about Omaha, because I hate living here, so there's that. Maybe I don't need a Transport Officer after all.

I loved the section dedicated to Boudicca, the fierce Iceni queen. I'm not keen on the wholesale slaughter of innocent people that she spearheaded, but I understand her need for revenge. I so desperately want her to have been a real person and it just kills me that we will never really know for sure. Despite Tacitus writing of her, there are some historians who doubt her existence. I choose to ignore them and focus on the fact that there is literally a layer of earth below London referred to as the 'Boudiccan Destruction Layer', which is described as a thick layer of red burnt debris which has been found to cover pottery  that dates to before 60 AD in what was then Londinium. Roman skulls were also found a few years ago that were possibly Boudicca's victims. She was real, I know it. She has to be.

Aside from the trip through Londinium, I was just as excited about the jaunt through Bath, perhaps my favorite city in England (though to be fair, I did not get to spend a ton of time in London, which I am sure I would love just as much). There was a whole chapter dedicated to Bath and as the author was describing the great bath, I could picture it in my mind exactly and I was right back there, as I had been physically a few years ago. it's a very calming place, even now with tourists traipsing through. I'd love to be there when it's quiet, but even when it's not, you get this very cool, peaceful feeling. Plus dusk was settling as our time there was ending, and it was very surreal, very cool. I'd like to go back in the future and experience it without my camera so I can just BE there. Also, the curses discovered at Bath are hilarious.

There were many little things throughout the book that really made it for me. Throughout the trek from Rome to Hadrian's Wall as Julius Severus would have done, the author includes the modern name in parentheses after the Roman name. Additionally, with a lot of the quotes the author uses, she then puts its translation into Latin after giving the English version.

Seeing Hadrian's Wall, walking some it, is high on my bucket list. But the author brings up a great point about the families who were displaced by the building of this marvel. These families may have been on that land for hundreds of years, but their homes were demolished after having to be abandoned because the wall was built. That bums me out because those Romans were just kind of jerks all around and didn't care who they displaced in order to try to bring order to the ends of their empire.

The final chapter of the book actually ends at 48%. A post-script follows that is entitled 'Beyond 130 AD: People, Politics, and Places." We kind of find out what happened to Julius Severus after he was recalled to Rome. The politics section goes over what happened to Rome and the 'Places of Note' section gives a bit more information about all the places mentioned or visited in the text. I also appreciated this section because it then gave a little info about what those places are like today.

Before the bibliography at 54%, the author also included a list of the Latin place names and their English counterparts. I found this extremely helpful, as was the bibliography section itself. It reiterated just how well-researched the book is, so even though the actual text was only 48% of the file, it was definitely worth the read.

The only complaint I really have about this one is that due to the asterisks throughout the chapters corresponding with notes at the end of each chapter, a hard copy would have been easier to go back and forth between. There were points where I would get to the notes section at the end of a chapter and sometimes forget what I had especially wanted to know more about. Otherwise, this was a really fantastic read that I enjoyed. Highly recommended.

Thames: The Biography

Rating: 4 Stars

Review:

It is strange to be a little in love with a river? Maybe obsessed is a little more accurate, but there is something so lovely and melancholy and of course historic about this stretch of water, easily one of the most famous rivers in the world. Perhaps that is my bias, given my love of that little island where she flows. Ah well.

If you read my review of 'Foundation' by the same author earlier in the week, you can imagine by trepidation with beginning this one. Foundation was so terrible, not at all what I have come to know and enjoy from Peter Ackroyd, so I was nervous that he would somehow have screwed this one up too - though how can you really screw up a biography of A RIVER? Luckily, he did not. It was everything I expected and thought it would be.

Ackroyd offers up a whole slew of information, from the origin of the name 'Thames', through to where the Thames becomes the sea. I found many of the chapters highly informative, though naturally cared less for the information regarding the river in Victorian times and beyond. Not the river's fault of course, but I am just less interested in how the Victorian's used the river, because from then on it is not really new information. But to learn about the Iron Age, Bronze Age, etc settlements? That is something else entirely and always among my favorite topics.

My two favorite sections easily were 'Shadows and Depths' and 'The River of Death'. They were broken down further into sections, among the most interesting being 'Legends of the River'. Unfortunately it was just a few short pages and dealt with the paranormal element. Surely some of the more well-known stories could have been elaborated on, if Ackroyd could spend 80 pages talking about those who work on the river. Some of those chapters I skimmed, not going to lie. 'Offerings' was another chapter I found most interesting, as it dealt with the many hundreds of thousands of objects recovered from the Thames, constantly. From weapons and brooches to skulls, the Thames is a keeper of secrets that we will never be able to know. It really is fascinating it macabre sort of way the amount of skulls that have been discovered.

Side note to Ackroyd - don't suppose things about Eleanor of Aquitaine. At one point he mentions a location where Henry II's mistress 'Fair Rosamund' lived until her death, stating, "...It was said that she was eventually poisoned by Henry's wife, Eleanor of Aquitaine." While a little revenge in the middle ages would not have been unheard of, let's be realistic. Henry had imprisoned Eleanor for fifteen years, seeing as how she kept inciting their sons into rebellion against him. She was powerful enough in her own right and had little need for Henry at that point in their lives.

But, to end on a positive note, I loved the many maps included - especially in the additional material, 'An Alternative Topography, from Source to Sea' where Ackroyd takes the reader from the beginning of the Thames to the end, stopping at the various villages, castles, and cities along the way. There were many photographs as well to enhance the descriptions throughout and despite that massive amount of pollution, I still want to follow the river myself from start to finish. What a journey that would be.

Foundation: The History of England from its Earliest Beginnings to the Tudors

Rating: 1.5 Stars

Review:

I don't even.

I can't even begin to explain how disappointed I am in this book and Ackroyd's work here. I am actually kind of angry about this book. Normally he is an author I enjoy, having read several of his other titles (The Thames, Chaucer, etc). I so looked forward to this one as this book literally covered almost my entire interest in England.

What makes this disappointment even worse is how promising it even starts out. It begins with a delightful romp through Roman Britain and Boudicca's destructive power (again I say, Eleanor is so lucky I discovered Eleanor of Aquitaine before Boudicca, and the latter is just a nickname). I even enjoyed most of the bits about those nasty Angles and Saxons who were terribly destructive themselves, but eventually manage to evolve into my dear Anglo-Saxons.

When Ackroyd gets specifically to Alfred, king of Wessex, the Angles and the Saxons - Alfred the Great, my first issue comes to light. While it is generally acknowledged that yes, Alfred's grandson Athelstan is the first king of England (England as a whole, not an island of individual kingdoms - Wessex, Mercia, Northumbria, etc), Alfred's accomplishments can not be overlooked. I mean, come on, he remains the only king to ever be referred to as 'the Great'. Alfred set up the kingdom to become successful and united; had he not beaten back the Danes, encouraged reading, writing and education in general, or written down the laws of the land, England could have taken a very different course. Let's give him a little more credit here. There would be no England without Alfred.

The next big flag came when the death of Edmund Ironside was completely glossed over. When Edmund and Cnut were basically co-kings, and then within a few months Edmund was dead, it is generally thought that he was murdered so Cnut could rule alone. Edmund's two sons, Edward and Edmund, were spirited out of the country and Cnut's reach. While the son Edmund also died, sometime in exile in Hungary, Edward eventually returned to England, the potential successor of Edward the Confessor. However, within a few days of his landing in England, he was murdered, which set the course for the invasion of the Normans and The Conquest by William I. I have always felt like this is an important piece of the puzzle, as at this point England's history could have been drastically altered and the Anglo-Saxon line (albeit with a strong injection of Hungarian, due to Edward the Exile's decades away from home) might have continued for a long time. No Normans would mean no Plantagenets, which in itself would also have been tragic. But that is another story. It confuses me as to why Ackroyd would not present this information, but perhaps I view it as more important than it actually is.

Speaking of Edward the Confessor now, Ackroyd makes a statement to the effect of Edward choosing his successor as he neared death. The king did not choose his successor though, the next king was chosen and anointed by the Witan, so Edward could not leave his crown to anyone as was stated. The Witan chose Harold, so it would not have mattered if Edward has promised William and/or that Harold might have sworn an oath to uphold William's claim.

As we move through the beginnings of the Norman kings right before the Plantagenet dynasty dawns, there is another slew of missing and/or mis-information. Ackroyd seems to accept almost unequivocally that William II's death was an accident, despite his own brother's actions after his death - and that fact that his hunting companion who 'accidentally' shot him reportedly immediately left the scene. Upon learning his brother had been shot on their hunting outing, Henry immediately rode off to secure the treasury - surely a sign that he might have known something? The mishandling of the Norman kings continues with Stephen. Stephen was nephew to Henry I. Henry I had made his nobles swear an oath to support his daughter Matilda as queen, as his only legitimate son had died when The White Ship sank years earlier. Naturally when Henry I died and Stephen claimed the throne, no one argued because England had never had a queen rule and were not about to start. Ackroyd states that Stephen was crowned in 1135 but that it was not until 1139 that Matilda arrived to "claim her country". That is by and far one of the biggest issues with this book - there is no detail or support as to WHY it took so long for Matilda to land on English shores. She was married to Geoffrey, duke of Anjou. It was not as though she was thousands of miles away, she was across the Channel. Some kind of explanation for her actions would have been welcome, instead of just glossing over it as was done with Ironside's death a few centuries earlier. Ackroyd also fails to mention that Stephen had a son, who was passed over in the line of succession for Matilda's son (Henry II) to bring an end to their brutal civil war.

I was tempted to quit when Eleanor of Aquitaine was almost completely whitewashed from England's history. I mean, seriously. She was important, despite Ackroyd's statement of Eleanor "severing herself from the king". In truth she retreated to her own estates as the king became involved with his beloved mistress Rosamund Clifford, then was imprisoned for fifteen years for inciting their sons into rebellion. More than once. As we continue along with the Plantagenets, Ackroyd seems baffled by the fact that King John and Richard III are often associated. My guess would be they are associated often in peoples' minds because they both murdered children to get their thrones. Ackroyd does address the fact that Arthur (Geoffrey's son), John's nephew, was actively campaigning against him and actually besieging Eleanor at Mirebeau when he was captured. At the time Arthur was fifteen, and seeing as how he was active in the battle I see Ackroyd's claim that he essentially became a prisoner of war so to speak when John captured him. The fact remains however, that Richard I had named Arthur as his heir to the throne, seeing as how their deceased brother Geoffrey was older than John (the spoiled baby of the family), and thus had a better claim. Not to mention John was super shady and cruel and not at all fit to be king. So yeah, killing the rightful kings who happened to also be children is what will always link them, no matter how Ackroyd wants to say this was not true in John's case.

I seriously considered quitting a second time when I realized I had made it all the way to the reign of Henry III (John's son) and had not even caught a swift glimpse of William Marshal, the greatest knight in the history of England. I double checked the index just to make sure my eyes were not deceiving me, but sure enough, he is no where to be found.

I am almost tempted to not even bother with reviewing the chapters relating to Richard III. This book was published in 2011, so it is no fault of Ackroyd's that Richard's remains had not yet been discovered (Phillipa Langley wouldn't be bawling her eyes out on national television for a while yet, upon discovering that he did in fact have a crooked spine). However, the problem is he claims such authority, so sure that Richard's remains had been scattered or thrown in the river. He states this as fact, not the speculation they need to appropriately be described as. For example, on page 416 Ackroyd says, "The king, for example, was not a hunchback. As a result of strenuous martial training one arm and shoulder were overdeveloped, thus leading to a slight unbalance but nothing more." Again, while the author could not have known that within a short time the world would know that, in fact, Richard did have a significant curvature of the spine, he certainly could have addressed this more responsibly.

There are some positives here. Despite everything I have said thus far, though overall I was greatly disappointed, there is still some good. While the longer chapters detail what Ackroyd wants the reader to know with his take on England's history, he also includes shorter chapters throughout that deal with daily life on the island, from food, to religion, to dwellings, etc. At first these chapters annoyed me because it made the book feel a bit disjointed, going back and forth from general to specific history. But the more I read, the more I began to enjoy them. However if I had to choose between more details on the kings and queens, or these little chapters, hands-down I would opt for the former. I believe this is the first of four books. If Ackroyd wanted to present a clearer picture of England by including these chapters, perhaps he should have planned to write five books in the series then to make room for all the facts and information he left out.

I feel like I have made my point here with some of the biggest issues with the book. Basically, Ackroyd has taken some of the most interesting pieces of history and condensed them down into little bite sized morsels for popular consumption. The problem with that is that many of these stories are so complex and deserve to be fleshed out to explore all facets. That is how you really get the big picture, really understand how England became England. This is at times sensational and gossipy, ignoring more plausible theories for wild claims (hello, Edward II). It is as though this is a completely different author than I am used to reading. It is disheartening, because I was looking forward to the second book, which of course focuses on the Tudors, as this one concludes with Henry VII's reign. I can by no means recommend this as the first book for anyone to read who does not already have background knowledge, as I would hate for anyone to read this and think it is all accurate. There is a decent bibliography that I plan exploring further to see how Ackroyd came to some of the conclusions that he did. Perhaps then I will better understand his view, and then be able to move on to the second book with a little more ease.

The Oxford Illustrated History of Roman Britain

Peter Salway

Rating: 4 Stars

Review:

This was quite an endeavor. I thoroughly enjoy all things British (until James VI/I has to go an die), so this was a no-brainer for me to pick up, despite its age (my edition published in 1993, but the first edition came out in 1981). This is 500+ pages of everything you would ever want to know about Roman Britain and everything we could possibly know up to that point. Of course there have been further discoveries made in the last 22 years, but this one is still very, very comprehensive.

I have always had good luck with the Oxford University Press books. I've never met one that I couldn't read quickly. This brick, however, presented my first challenge. Part of the reason for the slow-going is that I am far more interested in Roman Britain than Ancient Rome, and the two are naturally very connected, seeing as how you couldn't have the one I am interested in without the one I am less interested in. But so many things happening all over the Roman Empire had a direct impact on Roman Britain, primarily in regards to the Roman army and taking soldiers off the island when needed to quell outbreaks elsewhere - which directly led to the fall of Roman control.

Another reason for my slow-going could also be partly due to the fact that the writing was kind of dry at times. It just was not very exciting or inciting me to turn the pages very quickly - except for the photographs and maps. There are a plethora of both included (this being the 'illustrated' history and all) and I often found many of those to be more interesting than the writing itself. I don't think this is totally the fault of the author, as this is a huge section of time to take on, especially for a time period where we don't have a lot of contemporary accounts. We have the accounts by Roman citizens living on the Continent and in Rome itself, but far fewer from those living on the island of Britain.

This leads to my last sort-of disappointment. While the focus was of course Roman Britain and how it functioned as property of the Roman Empire, I was looking for more attention paid to the indigenous population. As always, Boudica gets her (well-deserved) moment in the sun, even if the facts are at best fleeting. (As an aside, how can one not admire this warrior queen who avenged her daughters in such a awesomely powerful way? It makes her later defeat that much more tragic. I tell Eleanor all the time she is lucky I discovered Eleanor of Aquitaine before I discovered this mighty Iceni queen, or her name might have been VERY VERY different!) I would have liked to see more focus on the people who the Romans conquered, and how profoundly their lives were changed.

Over all, this is a highly comprehensive look at the island of Britain during its time as part of the Roman Empire. There are several helpful maps, floor plans, and photographs. Highly recommended for those with a deep interested in the subject, though it might be a bit overwhelming for those with no background knowledge or just a passing interest.

As always, here are a few photos in connection with my own contact with Roman Britain - Mom and I at the Roman baths at Bath in 2009:


Looking down from the balcony into the main bath. The spring is in the upper right corner (Bath, 2009)


Standing my the spring, lower left, looking out to the main bath (Bath, 2009)

Roman Britain: Outpost of the Empire

Rating: 4 Stars

Review:

Though the text is a bit dated (1979), it still contains a wealth of information, photos and maps. I have yet to find a book put out by Thames and Hudson that I have not enjoyed. Certainly I would recommend it still today, despite being 30+ years old. I find this time period so fascinating, more so in relation to it being Roman Britain specifically - not just regarding the Roman aspect. 

My only wish is that at least some of the photographs might have been in color - though it is possible that updated texts would have color photography. And, of course, I have my own photos of the Roman Baths in Bath, which Mom and I visited in 2009 as part of our UK trip. It was so amazing to see these structures that have existed for almost 2,000 years. That these ruins have survived as much as they have continues to amaze me and the preservation work that has gone into this place is wonderful. I can't wait to go back to the UK and see other remains from this ancient age (Hadrian's Wall, I'm lookin' at you!) The following photos were taken either by or my mom in Bath in November of 2009 and belong to us:

The Roman Baths; in the foreground to left is where the spring flows into the bath. It takes thousands of years (I think 10,000, but I am not positive) for the water cycle to complete. (Bath, 2009)

Mom and I (Bath, 2009)

The Roman Baths (Bath, 2009)

Remains of the hypocaust used for heating (Bath, 2009)

The bath lit up as dusk falls (Bath, 2009)