AWESOME DEAL ALERT!

The Kindle edition of Six Wives is currently on sale at Amazon for $1.99!

1215: The Year of Magna Carta

Rating: 4 Stars

I really enjoyed Danzinger's book 'The Year 1000', so I had high hopes for this one for a number of reasons. First, I like his writing style. it is conversation without being condescending about academics. Secondly, I was hopeful (and correct) that Eleanor of Aquitaine would play a role in the text. Some historians are dismissive of her, in saying she was not that important. I beg to differ - how else would Richard have been freed from Leopold, how might John have further ruined England had he usurped the throne with Richard locked up? She was badass and I dare anyone to say it to my face that she wasn't. (I mean, it's not like I would punch you if you said it to my face, but be prepared for a verbal tongue-lashing. And a zillion facts for why you are WRONG.) Anyway, also bonus points for references to William Marshal, arguably the greatest knight to ever live. Without he and Eleanor working behind the scenes (and sometimes quite visibly) it can be alarming to think of what other havoc John might have wrecked.

But, on to the book.

I believe that some readers did not read the title fully. I know this happens, as it is something I do all the time. I focus on a word or two in the title and then get all upset when the book is not what I think it is going to be or supposed to be. The book is not about Magna Carta. it is about the year 1215 (and surrounding years, actually), the year this fascinating and incredibly important document was signed. Now, realistically, Magna Carta was not important in the way we think it should have been - John certainly did not take it seriously and almost immediately broke the agreement. It was rewritten and reissued several times, but did not fully function as it was intended, mostly because John was a weasel. I guess it is not entirely his fault, he was the baby of the bunch, called 'Lackland' because he had no inheritance to speak of while his older brothers lived, and was forever in the shadow of Richard. Still, he was a weasel for whatever reason and that comes through in the text.

Unlike Danzinger's previous book I mentioned that was broken up by each month in the year 1000, this one is divided into topics pertaining to the year 1215 and the early part of the century, really. We are introduced (or revisiting, if you are like me and already familiar with the era). The author presents information about life in towns, the countryside, schools, the Church, tournaments and battles, and so on. There is also a chapter devoted entirely to John, then the charter itself 'The Great Charter'. Something I found to be interesting was that at the beginning of each chapter, a quote relating to said topic was pulled directly from Magna Carta. It's a good way to get an understanding and become familiar with the document before actually diving in to the bulk of it.

As always, I am big fan of authors using contemporary resources. This book makes use of many of such documents, besides Magna Carta. There are clerk records, letters, diaries, purchase records, and more. I love this, because I love reading original material in the language of the time. It is not always easy, and sometimes I might have to read it a couple times to understand, but it is worth the time. Then, of course, the author includes the whole of Magna Carta, every single last clause that makes up this world-changing document.

As an aside, I was really happy to see the full text included here. In 2009, my mom and I visited Scotland and (very briefly) England (mostly just to see Wicked on Mom's birthday, the bulk of the trip was Scotland because it was Mom's dream vacation). For the one full day we were in England, I had booked a day trip that included visits to Bath, Stonehenge, and Salisbury Cathedral. But when we arrived for check-in, we were informed Salisbury had been closed for the day and we would not be able to see Magna Carta. I was so bummed. Windsor Castle was substituted, which would have been great - Henry VIII is buried there! Except...Queen Elizabeth II was knighting people that day so many parts of Windsor were also closed. It was some bad luck, but the perfect excuse to go back. And believe me, that trip will definitely happen.

Overall, I highly recommend this little volume. it is a small book, and a short book, but one well worth the read.

Bess: The Life of Lady Ralegh, Wife to Sir Walter

Rating: 4 Stars

Review:

I received this book for free in exchange for an honest review from the publisher, Endeavour Press.

First and foremost, this book made me want to punch Ralegh in the face. It took him how long into their marriage to see Bess as an asset? What a tool. But of course she could not just divorce him, nor did she want to because she loved him, but good lord. He was just a raging d-bag much of the time. I was particularly incensed when he was released from The Tower and Bess was left prisoner, with their young child - who succumbed to the plague that was ravaging the city. How sad for Bess that not only was she still locked away and her husband was off ignoring her and their marriage, but to lose a child.

While on the subject of Bess and her first child, this text served to reaffirm my general disdain for Elizabeth: "It was, however, no coincidence that Bess and her baby were left in plague-ridden London" (27%). Time and again Elizabeth is spoiled and manipulative. And as always, there is the glossing-over of her role in the execution of Mary, Queen of Scots. It was not just "counselors giving orders, and the execution being carried out". Elizabeth knew exactly what she was doing when she signed the warrant. She knew it would be carried out and I do not believe for one moment that she felt bad about it.

But, back to Bess. She on the other hand, turned out to be quite a remarkable woman who endured much hardship throughout her lifetimes in order to provide for her family. She had no choice, after all, seeing as how her husband was absent much of the time on ill-fated adventures, chasing myths. Walter has the nerve to be all pissed off about Bess supposedly ruining his career with their marriage, yet I am pretty sure he had a part in it...or it would not have been a marriage. To him I would say, Man up, Buttercup. Luckily it seems as though he came to value her more and more as their marriage went on, through his terrible decision-making, and in the end she would be the one to promote her husband's legacy. Much of the time I felt sorry for Bess, thinking how sad and lonely it must have been to have had a husband who was off gallivanting around, wasting the Queen's money and drawing her ire more often than not. But luckily there is plenty of evidence to show what Bess' life was like and with a full household, she really could not have been lonely very often. Especially early on in the marriage, it is of comfort to know that Bess had her brother and family and household to support her, even as her husband still did not publicly even acknowledge the marriage despite having been married a few years.

The author does as well a job as she can in bringing Bess to life. The story is quite detailed in some aspects, but there are several occasions though where it felt like this was just as much a biography of her husband and the times as it was of Bess. This is to be expected and the author can not be faulted, as it would be more unusual for us to have heaps of information about any woman who was not a ruler or very near the top of the social ladder. This aspect is important, I think, for us to understand who Bess was and  how she became a strong, shrewd businesswoman/lawyer, so to speak. It felt like early on, Bess and Walter's stories were almost separate, as they themselves were physically so far apart at times. But gradually their stories came together, especially in those later years when Walter was spending more and more of his time being a prisoner instead of an explorer.

Some of Bess' letters survive, as do many of Walter's and - surprise, surprise - he rarely, if ever, mentions his wife until later, when he came to rely on her quite heavily. To be honest, overall I really just found that Walter Ralegh was kind of a douchenozzle at first. I realize douchenozzle is not a very professional term, but I was just so angry at him for most of the book. Don't get me wrong, there are some questionable decisions Bess made at various points in her life as well, but if he really felt Bess was a hindrance to him (and he KNEW Elizabeth was a giant baby who would have a fit when she discovered his marriage), then why did he never seek a divorce? If he had ever considered it, I am sure that by the end of his life he was glad he did not, as Bess never stopped working for him, to keep her family together and to regain the family inheritance for their only surviving son, Carew.

In the end, we do not actually know how or when the life of this incredibly strong, remarkable woman came to a close. I find this unsurprising, albeit sad. She survived her husband's execution and told his story, built up his legacy. But when Bess passed, there was no one to do so for her. Luckily for us, the author made wonderful use of surviving letters, documents, court papers, and such so we can have a more full portrait of an unusual woman in dangerous times. Highly recommended.

John of Gaunt

Rating: 3.5 Stars

Review:

I received a copy of this text for free directly from the publisher, Endeavour Press, in exchange for an honest review.

I am wavering back and forth on this one a bit, three stars or four. This was an incredibly informative read, in particular when it came to the Duke of Lancaster's military exploits (and unfortunate lack of success in most cases), but it was lacking in the areas I was most interested in - his personal life. I wanted to know more about his relationship and eventual marriage to Katherine Swynford and while the book touched on it, it never got quite as much attention as I would have liked. However, one must remember when reading this book, that it was first published in the early 1900s. Times have changed and new information may have come to light in that time that was not available to the author then. Or, perhaps more likely, the author was less concerned with that aspect of Lancaster's life. Either way, the book is heavy on the details of battle plans, which is not necessarily my area of interest. I kept reading though, because the book is still a well-written of a most interesting life, John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster - founder of the House of Lancaster and what would eventually lead to what we call today the War of the Roses.

Early on, the book is just as much about Lancaster's older brother Edward, the Black Prince, as it was about John. One would expect as much, seeing as how Lancaster was the fourth son (but third to survive to adulthood) of King Edward III and as a son so far down the line it was never expected that he would eventually play such an important role behind the throne. It is easy to understand then why there is not nearly as much information about him as we may like, and what we see from that time comes in relation to what is known of his older, just as famous, brother.

As an interesting (to me, at least) aside while on the topic of the Black Prince, I recently read an article concerning the siege at Limoges - where in the book it is discussed that the prince had roughly 3,000 thousand men, women, and children massacred. It actually may not have happened that way. New documents that have been discovered indicate that after the siege, this massacre may not have taken place but instead 300 hostages were taken. While we may never know for sure, it is an important point to make when reading older texts such as this that new information is being discovered all the time. And I would like to believe it did not happen, but the Middle Ages were quite a different world altogether and it can not be dismissed entirely; massacres like that occurred often in battle.

One of the most interesting sections to me occurred when it came to the non-battle-oriented aspects, such as the management of Lancaster's lands, who was in charge of what, etc. While this information was specific for Lancaster, it also could have been about any other noble with large landholdings, and I could appreciate the information as being just about the time period in general as it was about him. I love the Middle Ages and there are certainly times where the book focuses more on the period itself. I feel like maybe that was due to the fact that there were simply times in Lancaster's life that could not be accounted for, so generalities had to take the place of Lancaster-specific info. I am not entirely opposed to that practice, but there does need to be a balance between subject and general information.

I also enjoyed the sections detailing Lancaster's retreat and seeking refuge in Scotland. I do not think most people (who know of the time period) realize quite how many times Lancaster had to defend himself against his enemies who sought to bring him down. Many thought he was angling for the throne himself, which may well have been true. But time and again when he could have gone after it, he did not. It is intriguing to think about how different England might look today had that happened and he been successful. Or maybe not, seeing as how his son Henry Bolingbroke would go on to become King Henry IV anyway. Or, history could have gone a completely different direction had any of the Edwards (Edward III, Edward the Black Prince, and the Black Prince's son, also Edward) managed to live just a bit longer. Richard II might never have been king at all and that would be something to contemplate.

After I muddled through the Castile battles and plans and the like, I was excited to see a chapter regarding Katherine Swynford. I thought finally, what I have been waiting for. But alas, it was not solely devoted to this aspect of Lancaster's life and so I was a bit disappointed. I wanted to know so much about their life and their children, and perhaps I simply have to seek other books to find more information on this topic, for reasons I addressed above.

Overall, I can say that I would recommend this book to anyone interested in the Middle Ages and the larger-than-life figures who lived in that age. This text will be of special interest to those who are keen on military information and the Hundred Years' War, as well as Lancaster's forays into Castile and Leon. Despite its age, the book is still very informative and would be a great addition to a medieval books collection.

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 English and Their History

Rating: 3 Stars

Rating:

This book is exhausting. So exhausting, in fact, that I am not even sure I can review it properly. I have read more than my fair share of books. One might say reading is my 'thing'. I am especially fond of that little island now called England and its amazing history, going way back to the Iron Age people, through Roman Britain, the Anglo-Saxons, the Normans, the Plantagenets, and the Tudors. Beyond that, my interest starts to wane. In the past with books about the history of England, I have always given up a bit after James VI/I. Sometimes I make it through the execution of his son, Charles I, but rarely. I vowed this time, with this one, to make it through. And so I did. Barely.

So, this one began in what is typically still referred to as the Dark Ages, despite our knowledge of the time growing more clear all the time with new discoveries. The Anglo-Saxons and Alfred are possibly my most favorite of the eras in England's history, so it is always nice to see him given his due. Alfred is, after all, the only king in the country's history to be called 'the Great'.

My concerns with the book come very early on though, as I feel there were many aspects of England's history that were glossed over or not mentioned at all from those early years, in favor of much more material covering the last two hundred years. For example, while we see Edgar Aetheling mentioned, there is almost zilch about his grandfather Edmund Ironside and his brief co-reign with Cnut - it is generally thought that Edmund was murdered by or on Cnut's orders so he could assume complete power. Subsequently there is nothing about Ironside's sons who were spirited out of the country and Cnut's reach. That in itself is a fascinating story and deserved a place. The course of history might look very different for England had someone aside from William I become king. There were many other times that this lack of detail jumped out at me - perhaps because these are among the time periods I know best. The author calls the circumstances of William II's (William Rufus) death 'mysterious', but does not fully elaborate. It is considered mysterious for a number of reasons, considering he was shot in the chest with an arrow and the culprit left the scene immediately - while Henry I (his younger brother, the youngest son) headed straight for the treasury to secure it and the crown, effectively stealing it from Robert who was next in line. Further more, it was strange to me that the author considered Matilda (Henry I's daughter) the antagonist in the civil war between her and her cousin Stephen. When Matilda's brother Henry died on the White Ship, she became the only legitimate heir. At least twice Henry I made his nobles swear an oath to support Matilda's claim as queen, but given the fact that there had never been a queen who ruled in her own right, as soon as Henry I was dead they naturally (for the time period) looked elsewhere. Stephen was the usurper, the antagonist, though Matilda certainly did herself no favors by alienating some who she needed support from. In the end, Stephen agreed for Matilda's son to become king as Henry II, despite Stephen having a son of his own. So began the 300 year rule of the Plantagenets.

There was very little attention given to another of my favorites - Eleanor of Aquitaine. She is hardly mentioned, and only as Henry II's wife. We get a glimpse but that is it and no where does it say that without her gathering the ransom, her son Richard I would likely never have been released from prison. While Richard cared very little for England and preferred his lands in Aquitaine, or the Holy Land on Crusade, him being overthrown by John even earlier could have caused even more destruction.

By the time we get to Elizabeth, all of my favorite periods were covered. This amount to roughly 200 pages out of nearly 900 (1,000 if you count the end notes, index, etc). For the rest of the time it was pretty rough going for me, because it just does not hold my interest the way early England does. I truly don't even understand it myself, how I can be totally enthralled by the first 1,600 years and not care one iota about the last 400. But I was determined to slog on through. As a result, it took me a while and I frequently set it aside for something else. I have to be quite honest and admit I skimmed the Industrial Revolution. Glad it happened and all, but it is a terrible snooze to read about.

I found the Victorian era more interesting to read about this time around, so perhaps there is hope for that in the future. World War I and World War II were great reads from the English perspective, as anything I have read about them in the past have been strictly from an American viewpoint. Throughout the book there were tons of maps to aid the reader with the text, which I have always found especially helpful when discussing battles and troop movements. My only real complaint about WWI material involves the omission of Gavrilo Princip. You may not recognize the name, as so often he is simply referred to as 'the assassin of Archduke Franz Ferdinand'. I feel like it is a disservice to history that his name is routinely ignored. Like it or not, for better or worse, hi actions set of a chain of events that culminated in The Great War, which in turn lead directly to WWII.

I can't speak for the accuracy of the rest of the text due to my limited knowledge of those eras, but I at least found them somewhat engaging - enough to continue reading anyway. This is certainly not a book I would consider as my first if I knew nothing about England's history. It is quite the endeavor and not one to enter into lightly if you are looking for a quick read. On the other hand, if you are more interested in the time periods after the Tudors that are less interesting to me, then this may just be the book for you, as that is the bulk of the material.

100 Documents That Changed the World: From the Magna Carta to WikiLeaks

Rating: 3.5 Stars

Review:

I really love books like this, the '50 Objects..." or "12 Maps..." that 'changed the world' type books. This book is no exception, as it covered several documents that truly did change the world, for better or worse. While I disagree somewhat with some of the items included ('War and Peace' and '1984' - I do not consider books to be documents per se), the majority really do help the book live up to its name. How can you go wrong when writing about Magna Carta, the Emancipation Proclamation, the Apollo 11 Flight Plan, and Anne Frank's diary in one volume?

Turns out, you can. Or, at least not 'go wrong', but you can be lacking in detail and description at times. I understand this is not meant to be exhaustive, seeing as how it is quite slim to begin with, so I will get my complaints out of the way before I delve further in to discuss some of the specific documents addressed that I felt were among the most important. There is only one actual page of textual information devoted to each document, though that page often included a small picture of those who signed, witnessed, wrote, etc. the document. The opposite page was usually a picture of the document itself. Additionally, for a good portion of the beginning, nearly all of the documents were from Western Europe. Not all, but a good majority. Surely there were other important documents that could have been included from around the world and not just those few.

Now, to the documents I found most fascinating - it is also kind of embarrassing to admit that I did not know some of the facts I learned from this text. In my defense perhaps we were not taught those aspects in school? So many of these documents today exist now in the National Archives and I wish desperately to see them - namely the Fort Sumter Telegram announcing they were surrendering, and the Emancipation Proclamation. These were two hugely important documents that exist as a testament to the resolve of our young country - we were willing to go to war with ourselves to achieve the ends we wanted. The telegram began the war and the proclamation set us on the road to ending it. As an aside, I never knew that the E.P. ONLY freed slaves who were living in the states that had succeeded from the Union - AND applied only to those held by the Confederacy. So, apparently it was a shrug and a 'sorry' to the slaves living in areas recaptured by the Union, or the nearly 500,000 living in those border states who had not succeeded.

I am curious about the exclusion of the Gettysburg Address as an important document and thought perhaps it was excluded due to the inclusion of the Emancipation Proclamation. But both Martin Luther's 95 Theses were included, followed directly by the Edict of Worms. Those documents were separated by only four years, but concerned the same topic, so not sure why Lincoln's famous speech was not considered important enough?

Fun Fact: Apparently our Founding Fathers were not terribly responsible. The original copy of the Constitution had vanished at some point after its signing and no one knew where it was until 1846! Also, it has only been on display since 1952; I didn't realize it was such a short amount of time when I visited in 8th grade on a class trip.

A little dirty laundry gets aired here in the form of which states ratified the 19th Amendment and when - you keep it classy Mississippi, not ratifying until 1984. I am not surprised that many southern states were among the last to ratify it.

The 15 year old girl in me who will forever love Titanic could not help but be wistfully glad to see the inclusion of Titanic telegrams included as important documents that changed the world. Movie references aside, it really was a wake-up call to these shipping companies that safety measures needed to change and improve to avoid another tragedy on such a scale.

There were several documents relating to World War I and II, which should come as no surprise. The Treaty of Versailles is always troubling to me, as it basically assured that there would be another war - how could there not be? Germany was forced to take all the responsible for the Great War, only for the fact that they were the last ones standing when the war came to an end. It should shock no one that the Nazis were able to rise and grab power so swiftly; the treaty was crushing and the reparations were impossible.

When I think of a document, I think of something of the non-fiction, factual variety. This is why I struggle with the inclusion of books - manuscripts - in this text. However, I feel that Anne Frank's diary certainly deserves its place. The importance of this diary can not be overstated and if you do not believe me, try standing in the Annex and imagining living in this cramped space with seven other people, the majority of whom you struggle regularly to even get along with. It is one of the most humbling experiences I have ever had in my life and could not imagine spending two years in that place. Anne's diary gave a voice to the millions who had theirs cruelly and violently taken away. I did NOT like, however, that Miep Gies was simply referred to as the 'family friend' who later saved Anne's diary after the family had been taken away. Even with the focus being on the document itself, surely Miep deserves much more credit than that.

There were so many documents that I found interesting, I could keep writing for a while. I will finish this up with reference to a certain CIA document, dated August 6th, 2001, that stated very clearly an attack on the US by bin Laden was imminent. Unfortunately, this memo was handed to one of the most incompetent presidents in the history of our country, while he was staying at his ranch in Texas. You know, one of his 406 vacation days taken in his presidency, or some absurd number that the GOP conveniently likes to forget whenever they complain about Obama playing a round of golf. As a follow-up, the Iraq War Resolution was included but I couldn't even bother to read such garbage.

So, overall, this really is 3.5 stars. There were so many documents that belonged here, but at times their importance almost felt diminished simply because often only the bare facts were included. It is by no means a be-all, end-all for any of these documents and while I can recommend reading this one, I would also suggest further reading on any of the documents that interest you.

Mary Boleyn: In a Nutshell

Rating: 4 Stars

Review:

I really love these 'History in a Nutshell' books. When you read them, however, you always have to keep the series name in mind and thus rate, review and set your expectations accordingly. This was not meant to be an exhaustive history of the life of Mary Boleyn - there simply is not enough information available about her to write such a thing. But I feel like the author did a great job with the information we do have to work with.

I have always had a soft spot in my heart for Mary Boleyn, despite my intense dislike of her sister. I feel like she is treated quite unfairly in history as being the least ambitious of the siblings and it seems as though she is looked down on for the decisions she made - primarily because of her choice in marriage after her first husband died. Mary would get the last laugh of course, seeing as she is the only one who kept her head (though I doubt she was actually laughing, what a horrific thing to go through, whether they were estranged or not).

The problem, of course, is the very thing I mentioned above - there simply is not enough actual concrete information known about Mary to warrant a full text - though Alison Weir did try. I appreciate the author's use of many historical references and the great bibliography included. Not to mention I had no idea so many well-known people are descended from Mary. Last laugh, indeed.

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.

Stonehenge Complete

Rating: 3 Stars

Review:

This one will be short and sweet because there really is not a lot to say about this book, despite its nearly 300-pages and drawing after drawing of what people IMAGINE Stonehenge to look like even when they know that's not ACTUALLY what it looks like (I'm looking at you, Victorian artists...and pretty much every artist ever.)

Based on the title, I thought this was going to be about Stonehenge and the who/what/where/when/why, as far as we can know. Instead it was about how people throughout history have interpreted, damaged, and excavated the site. Some parts were truly DULL. I did find the sections devoted to the Druids interesting, and the dismissing of that myth. It was not until the page 264 (the chapter ends on page 272) that I got what I came for. Kind of a bummer. So, to cheer me up, here are a few pictures of Mom and I at Stonehenge in 2009. Such an amazing visit, to actually be there was just, wow. I could have walked around the structure for hours. All photos taken by/belong to me.

(2009)

(2009)

(2009)

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 the Vikings

Edited by Peter Sawyer

Rating: 4 Stars

Review:

I really enjoyed this collections of essays for a number of reasons. My primary level of interest in is Anglo-Saxon England and the Wessex kings especially - Alfred the Great is great for a reason (and the only king of England with this descriptor!) I also enjoy learning about the Vikings, as so much of the history of Norway, Iceland, and Greenland was only passed down from one generation to the next by word of mouth. What we do have written is truly a treasure, as these people and cultures can come alive to us once again by these words.

The text is a series of essays. Each author focused on their own area of interest, ranging from the Vikings in England, the end of he Viking age, Vikings in Russia, the ships, and so on. While I am not really interested in the ships themselves, or learning about maritime travel, that essay still help valuable information. One essay I found especially interesting was 'Religions Old and New', which discusses the old religion of the Vikings and their gods and the advent of Christianity. Greenland and Iceland were of particular interest too, not only because it is amazing that the ships were able to travel that far, but even beyond to reach North America - long before Columbus and his germ warfare. I would love to see the settlement ruins someday, and it is definitely on my bucket list. The essay focusing on Ireland, etc. was of great interest as well, as I have been to Dublin. Upon my visit with Mom in 2010, I had no idea that the Vikings had ruled Dublin for so long and that it was an area of focus for them. When visiting Dublin Castle on one of our tours, we were able to go below street level to see what remained of not only the medieval castle from the 13th century, but the earthen bank/stone wall of the original Viking town. Photographs belong to me and were taking in Dublin in July of 2010.

Helpful info to start with (2010) Unfortunately I don't have a great shot of the remains of anything but the medieval castle.

Overall, while some of the essays were a bit more dry than others, I enjoyed this collection. Certainly recommended for those interested in various aspects of life as a Viking.

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.

Shakespeare's Kings: The Great Plays and the History of England in the Middle Ages: 1337-1485

Rating: 4 Stars

Review:

If you are half as interested in Shakespeare and the Plantagenet dynasty as I am, you will enjoy this one. It is both a history text and an analysis of the Bard's greatest historical plays. The author does a fine job comparing the two, providing first the historical events, then how Shakespeare presented those events. The two did not always match up, but the author also provides sufficient explanations for why Shakespeare wrote this scene this way, or changed the chronology, etc. And it must be remembered too, as the author points out, "...but then (Shakespeare) was not a historian; he was a dramatist. The play was the thing; and if he could amuse, inspire and perhaps very modestly educate his audiences, that was enough."

My only real issue with the book has to do with punctuation: semi-colons are EVERYWHERE.

Otherwise, enjoy!

Additionally:

I also found this quote to be well-said and a concise way to wrap up the historical aspects of the text, and forgot to include it in my review:

"(Bosworth) marked the end not only of the Plantagenets and the Wars of the Roses, but also of the Middle Ages. The England of Henry Tudor and his successors would be a very different - and happier - place." Though, I might add, this would perhaps be truefor some; though not for any of his son's wives (except Anne of Cleves), or the many victims of the religious struggle between Catholics and Protestants.

Castles

Rating: 3 Stars

Review:

Not great, not terrible. Kind of dry at times. Great photos and illustrations, but seriously, no Edinburgh?? No Blarney?? Two amazing castles that deserved attention. No Windsor? No Stirling? Come on!

Additionally:

I decided to give this a little more attention - and also post pictures of my own favorite castles, because I love castles. I absolutely LOVE castles and have seen some awesome ones in Ireland, England, and Scotland. There are many more I want to see, but I have a good start.

This books really is informative, but it just read like a textbook sometimes and was very hard to continue - but it is by no means a long book. There are newer books available I'm sure - I hope - as we discover more and more during excavations. 

I was lucky enough to see several castles in my European travels in 2009 and 2010. When Mom and I traveled to the UK, we saw Edinburgh, Stirling, and Windsor (England was a short, short trip and much of Windsor was actually closed to tourists while the Queen was knighting people that day). Then in 2010 we traveled to Ireland, where we saw Dublin, Bunratty, Malahide, and Blarney. All amazing in their own right, though I am partial to ruins like Blarney, not furnished castles like Malahide. All photograpghs were taken by me (or my mom, or in the case where we are pictured together, a helpful but unnamed fellow tourist) in 2009 and 2010 and all belong to me.

Here are a few gems that should have been included in this book:

Our first view off the bus on the Royal Mile, after having landed, dropped our stuff at our B&B (The Ben Doran, AWESOME!), our first morning in Edinburgh (2009)

Edinburgh (2009)

Edinburgh (2009)

Urquhart Castle (2009)

Urquhart Castle (2009)

Entering the grounds of Stirling - MY FAVORITE! (2009)

Stirling (2009)

Stirling (2009)

Holyrood Palace (Okay, so not really a castle, but still awesome) (2009)

Windsor (2009)

Windsor (2009)

Blarney (2010)

Blarney (2010)

Blarney lots of small passageways to look around in! (2010)

Bunratty (2010)

Bunratty (2010)

Dublin (2010)

Dublin - this is about all that remains of the castle above-ground unfortunately. We were able to see the parts that are still underground though too (2010)

Dublin - The original castle stairs are now below street level (2010)

Dublin - remains of a city wall, below street level (2010)

Malahide (2010)

Malahide - Mom and I (2010) - the nice man who took our photo was quite the amateur photog. He kept directing us and his wife kept apologizing (she's the one standing to the left). It was quite funny, and we got this great picture.