NetGalley ARC | The Tudors in Love: Passion and Politics in the Age of England's Most Famous Dynasty

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

Review ⭐⭐

I am truly not sure why this one did not work for me, I have enjoyed so many other of Gristwood's books. It could be that I knew a lot of the info it contained, though I can appreciate the direct lens she looks at said info with. The author examines how the concept of courtly love impacted the Tudor dynasty both at home and abroad.

The legend of King Arthur, his queen, and his knights, was enthralling to many of England's rulers, but no one believed he embodied those chivalric qualities the way Henry VIII believed he did. The Tudors were excellent at claiming lineage from King Arthur himself, to further validate their very tenuous claim to the throne. But there was no propoganda machine like the Tudor Propaganda Machine, and so court life was infused with the games of courtly love.

Gristwood does an incredibly thorough job with her research and is clear in laying out how those legends shaped Henry's life and marriages.

To do this, Gristwood begins with the legends themselves, as well as looking at how previous monarchs also looked to the legends. This includes my girl Eleanor of Aquitaine, who I always like to read about. Gristwood then moves on to the Houses who combined under the rule of the first Tudor king, the Yorks and Lancasters.

Gristwood does an excellent job exploring the relationships of the Tudor monarchs and their courtiers, who were also invested in the game of courtly love. However, some background knowledge is helpful, as there are a lot of names thrown around.

Again, I am not sure why this one didn't work for me as well as the author's previous books, She's written four others and I enjoyed them all. I love non-fiction and read it almost exclusively, so that is not the issue.

I would still recommend this one to others who enjoy this period, as the issue in the case seems to be me.

Book Review | Heroines of the Medieval World

Rating ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Another essential read from the author on one of the most extraordinary periods in history, showcasing  a wide variety of women who were just as extraodinary. Connolly introduces many women both famous and obscure and shares their stories. Despite the fact that it was supposedly men who ruled the world, these women prove time and again that they were not merely subservient to the men in their lives. The choices these women make not only alter their own paths, but the wider world around them, some even changing so far as to change the course of history.

Connolly has organized the women by theme and I really liked this approach. I like that this lead to some overlap sometimes, because it shows how so many were connected. Themes include Heroines in Religion, the Medieval Mistress, Scandalous Heroines, Women Who Ruled, Captove Heroines, and the Survivors. There are others as well that I will leave you discover, just as I will let you discover these heroines and who Connolly chose to include. There were many women I was unfamiliar with, or only knew of in passing where they fit into someone else's larger story. As a result there are many more women I will seek out further books about.

Connolly is incredibly knowledgeable of the women and their world. This is a well-researched text with notes and references to back up her work. Despite not being organized by woman, there is still so much depth here that we get to know the women very well. She brings the women to life and does so in an informative but still accessible way.

I enjoyed this one quite a bit. It's a fantastic read and I hope that Connolly at some point produces a second volume because there are so many more women who also deserve their moment in the spotlight.

Highly recommended.

NetGalley ARC | Powers and Thrones: A New History of the Middle Ages

 

I received a free digital ARC from the publisher via NetGalley.

(I complained on Twitter about not getting approved or denied so maybe Dan Jones told them to give me a copy just so I would shut up about it.)

Rating ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

I know, I know.

I obviously can't be objective because it's Dan Jones, is what you're all thinking.

Well, I CAN!

This book is just THAT GOOD.

Literally all of my favorite people, places, and things from history, in one ginormous volume, covering roughly 1,000 years of everything that happened from the Fall of Rome to those Tudors coming in and shaking things up.

We're talking this one might be rivalling The Plantagenets: The Warrior Kings and Queens Who Made England as my most fave Dan Jones book. That's HUGE. I first learned about Eleanor of Aquitaine from The Plantagenets so Dan Jones basically named my baby. (Side note: I always remind Eleanor that she is so lucky that I learned about Eleanor of Aquitaine BEFORE Boudicca, or she might have a very different name.)

BUT THIS ONE IS SO GOOD.

You also might be thinking, "Do we need ANOTHER book about the Middle Ages?"

Again, the answer is yes.

What Jones has managed to do once again is combine his massive amount of knowledge, tying it all together across place and time, and present it in a highly informative yet highly readable way.

I was lucky to have teachers who really made history come alive for me, even going back to middle school. History has been my love for as long as I can remember. I get that non-fiction is not for everyone. A lot of people don't even give it a chance because history was taught to them in a boring recitation of facts and dates and names.

This book though, is something different; an extraordinary feat that Jones should 100% be proud of. (And I assure you he is, because who wouldn't be?)

He brings these historical figures to life and makes them real once more. It's hard sometimes to think about people this way, to imagine them living and working and dying in a world so different from our own. But Jones has the skill to share this knowledge and research in such an engaging way that you feel as though you could actually reach back in time and walk along Hadrian's Wall (which you actually can do if you're in the UK, which I am not and that is sad), to sit in a Great Hall and take in all the sights and sounds and smells of life at a royal court, to race along the Asian Steppes with Genghis Khan, watch as Rome is sacked time and again (six altogether in this span that Jones covers), and more.

SO MUCH MORE.

Really, truly. I was actually nervous about how I was even going to write up this review because there is so much material to address. Otherwise I would have had it up days ago.

Just for fun, let's take a look at all of my Goodreads shelves I added this book to, so you can get an idea of everything you'll find. I am selective in how I add non-fiction texts to my various shelves. If something is mentioned in passing and gets barely more than a paragraph, then no it does not qualify. If it is discussed in-depth or is used in a way that makes more clear the topic at hand, on the shelf it goes. They are as follows:

                        Ancient Rome    Medieval Europe    Middle Ages    Roman Britain    Asia   

Eastern Europe    Goths/Visigoths/Ostrogoths    Byzantium    Plague    Middle East    

Military History    Islam    France and the French    Carolingian Dynasty   

 Merovingian Dynasty    Vikings    Christian History    Plantagenets    King Arthur

    Wales    The Crusades    Eleanor of Aquitaine    Spain and the Spanish    

Mongols and Mongolia    Russia    Business and Leadership    Anglo-Saxon England

    Castles and Palaces    Christian Holy Places and Relics    Climate Change   

 Medicis    Joan of Arc    Architecture    Art    Explorers    Mexico    Popes   

 Germans and Germany    Tudors    Gauls and Franks

Quite a bit of information, no?

And if that's not enough, there are plenty more topics that would probably have justified the creation of a new shelf to accommodate it, but I chose not to. I couldn't even list all the labels on this post because there is a character limit.

I really love how Jones divided up each section. First there is Imperium, Latin for what amounts to absolute power, which Rome once had, which covers 410-750. Here we find chapters on the Romans, Barbarians, Byzantines, and Arabs.

Next comes Dominion, spanning 750-1215, with sections entitled Franks, Monks, Knights, and Crusades.

Third is Rebirth, 1215-1347, detailing the time as it related to the Mongols, Merchants, Scholars, and Builders.

Last comes Revolution, 1348-1527. We learn of Survivors, Renewers, Navigators, and Protestants.

As you might expect, there is an extensive section of notes and from Jones you should expect no less. The text ended at 77% in my advanced digital copy, with notes taking up the next 13% of the content. Primary sources cover another 4%, with journal articles and theses ending at 96%. The remainder right up to 100% is footnotes.

I can promise that if you pick this one up and settle in for a good bit of reading time, you will not be disappointed. Powers and Thrones: A New History of the Middle Ages is the new standard against which to measure all other books covering the same topics.

Without a doubt, this is the best book of 2021 for me and I don't believe that anything the rest of the year can top it.

Highly, highly, highly recommended.

Summer of Blood: England's First Revolution

Rating: 4 Stars

(Before we start: this book was originally published in the UK in 2009. I am reviewing the edition published here in the US in November of 2016.)

I fear that if I fangirl over Dan Jones too many more times on Twitter, he is going to get a restraining order. But it is super easy to be totally into your favorite authors, then also kind of in awe about the fact that many of them really do run their own social media accounts. They actually take the time to respond to their fans. To me that is one of the the coolest things an author can do, so yes, I have stupid-happy fangirl moments when my favorite authors, Dan Jones of course among them, acknowledges my existence.

Let's take a moment and admire that cover, shall we? I talk a lot about cover art and how it is crucial. Judging books by covers is totally okay in some instances and this would be one of them. It is striking. I love a good cover, especially when it is a subject I am highly interested in.

One of the things that makes Jones just the author for subjects like this, is that he has the ability time and again to take something that could be considered boring to some, and weave the facts and figures together in a narrative that is appealing to a variety of people. Namely, both those like myself who are on a mission to read every book about the Plantagenet dynasty possible, and those who might have a passing interest because they saw The Tudors on HBO and aren't the Tudors and Plantagenets the same anyway? (Not kidding, someone really said this to me. I had to just shake my head no.) There seems to be this prevailing attitude among my generation and perhaps at least the one after mine that considers history dull old stories about people long dead, so why should we care? I can't even tell you how many times I have been asked why I read so much non-fiction, and history in particular - especially history of a country that is not even mine. While all of Jones' books are very well-researched and detailed, the story-telling aspect is what can keep even those less interested in the subject as a whole engaged. It is a handy to skill to have.

I like to consider myself fairly well-read when it comes to this era in England's history. I am partial to earlier Plantagenets and Plantagenets-by-marriage (hey Eleanor, I see you girl!), but find the many colorful personalities highly entertaining. This specific event, however, is one that I did not know nearly as much about, so to find a book dedicated solely to the revolt, its key players, and its aftermath was indeed helpful in clarifying things. I know a fair amount about Richard II, but only of his later rule. As Jones points out, it is easy to see how the entire event impacted him (he was only 14 at the time) and shaped his outlook and rule over his kingdom and subjects for the ensuing 19 years. While previous uprisings (such as the events that lead to Magna Carta in 1215) were spearheaded by the aristocratic class, this was something entirely different. In this revolt, often referred to as the Peasants' Revolt, the Great Rising, or Wat Tyler's Rebellion, it was the lower classes who rose up to fight the taxes and statutes passed by their rulers - the council ruling for Richard until he came of age. Time and again throughout the rebellion, they insisted they were loyal to the king, but sought to rid him of those around him who were actually in charge. No person was more hated I believe than John of Gaunt, Richard's uncle. The Duke of Lancaster was the wealthiest man in the land, had properties all over the country, and sometimes fought unnecessary and coffer-draining battles. The thing here is that he was not even in England at the time, yet he remained a target as the rebels descended on London and destroyed his residence, Savoy Palace. As an aside, it totally kills me that some of these grand palaces (think Nonsuch, Woodstock, Savoy, to name a few) are gone now, and we do not even know for sure what some of them looked like. I had this grand idea in my head for a minute to take my daughter Eleanor to Europe when she is older so we can visit any place still in existence that is connected to Eleanor of Aquitaine, before my brain said, "Hey dummy, most of those places are gone now. Have fun in France at Fontevraud seeing the effigies of Eleanor, Henry II and Richard I, even though those other dummies scattered all their bones during the French Revolution."

But I digress.

There are several great quotes that I have included here that best sum up the events of the summer in 1381 better than I can:

"As if from nowhere, a huge army of farmers, bakers, brewers, and churchmen drawn from all over England rose up and attacked their masters. They nearly brought down the government. Several of the country's most senior officials and hundreds of other people were murdered before the rising dissolved into chaos and official retribution. Those who survived were deeply scarred by what they witnessed" (page 3).

Jones takes us through the events leading up to the rebellion, making sure to note it was not ONLY about taxes. Instead he says, "...the only way to unravel the rage of the rebels in 1381 is to examine a little more closely the changes that had taken place in English society during the previous thirty years. There was no single event to blame for the revolt but several burned fiercely underneath. And the most important was the arrival of the most ruthless killer England had seen then, or has seen since: the Black Death" (page 13). The nation was completely devastated by the disease, which gave way to a depleted labor force. This in turn allowed said laborers to increase prices on their goods/services, which of course was not going to go over well with the aristocracy who needed them. It goes without saying that there was a drastic difference in lifestyles from one group to the other, but the work force saw the opportunity to change that. It didn't work out for them, as could be expected, due to the taxes levied and statutes coming from Richard's council.

As mentioned before, John of Gaunt was easily the #1 target of the rebels once they were able to get into London. They had it in their minds to destroy the men they perceived as their enemies and destroy any ill-gotten wealth they could find. While this idea is kind of admirable, I found it disturbing that while ransacking and destroying Savoy, a man was caught trying to pocket a belonging of Gaunt's by other rebels and was promptly thrown in the fire that burned the palace down.

Aside from looking at the event as a whole and its aftermath, this can also be considered somewhat of a study of Richard himself in the final pages. Though he was only 14, age can not excuse the huge mistake he had made at Smithfield in telling the rebels they could go about catching traitors and turning them in for a trial. How he could have thought that would work is beyond me, given the violence that permeated the entire uprising. If he had simply left his message that day as one of forgiveness and telling everyone to go home, who knows how may lives might have been saved? But, as history would show, Richard would not become one of the great Plantagenet kings. After more years of missteps, and outright contempt for the powerful men around him, Richard was captured by his cousin, Henry Bolingbroke (John of Gaunt's son) and imprisoned at Pontefract Castle where he was (likely) murdered, thus paving the way for his cousin to become Henry IV.

At length, Jones addresses this in the epilogue in just how much of a disaster Richard's reign became: "At the root of many of these problems was the emerging nature of Richard's kingship. The young king had come of age at Smithfield, giving on that perilous afternoon a glimpse of the selfless bravery for which his father and the best of the Plantagenet dynasty had been famous. But in the aftermath he had shown the dark inclinations of his family's character that lay buried in his breast (page 200)...Richard was restoring his royal power not through reform or assertion of the rule of law, but by a barely legal terror in which viciousness had replaced wisdom, and blind fear stalked the troubled land (page 201)...Richard's personality and judgment had already been badly warped. He emerged from childhood, and 1381 in particular, with a profound distrust of his subjects and in particular his nobility. He grew up paranoid and vindictive, incensed at any attempts to guide him or to reform his rule (page 205)...Richard's first and greatest misfortune was that he lacked any effective role model for kingship. When he was a child he saw his grandfather, Edward III, at his worst: senile and surrounded by grasping acolytes. His father did not live long enough to shape Richard in his own mold. In the end, Richard's real role model was his uncle Gaunt, as disastrous a study in rule as he could've had. The boy picked up all of Gaunt's worst faults, without displaying any of his talent. He was a bully, but not authoritative; aggressive in defending the rights of the Crown, but with no true comprehension of its awesome responsibilities; eager to pick and maintain a quarrel, but guileless in making peace (page 206)."

Whew. Yes, I realize it is a long slew of quotes strung together, but I really think it sums Richard and his reign up perfectly. If you ever needed a speedy-quick run-down of Richard II, there you have it.

In closing, I first must say that I highly recommend this one, as has been my stance on the previous books he has authored. He is able to take a complex, well-researched story and still make it accessible to anyone, regardless of academic background. I shy away from calling it 'popular history', as to me that implies this kind of quickly-consumed-and-forgotten nonsense that seems to be so, well, popular at times. It is definitely anything but that.

Lastly, I will leave you with one final quote, despite the possibility that I am drowning my own review in an overabundance of quotes. (This is easy to do when you have a highly quotable book!)

"But of course the rebellion of 1381 was not just a tax revolt or a revolt against poorly considered labor legislation. It was the first sign that the ordinary people in England were politicized, and could be made angry enough to rise against bad leadership. They cared about foreign policy, and corrupt ministers, and bad laws...There was a profound sense that those high up in society were failing in their godly duties to protect and defend those lower down. Tyler's rebels were really very conservative. Only a few would have believed in Ball's doctrine of total egalitarianism; most simply wanted society and social relations to operate normally again" (page 207).

Women in the Middle Ages

Rating: 4 Stars

I have read several books by this husband and wife team and enjoyed them all. This one is no exception. Though it was written in 1978 and comes across at some points as dated now, it is a thoroughly researched and well-written look at the lives of women in what we refer to as the Middle Ages, roughly 600 AD to 1600 AD. Of course there is always debate as to when the actual Middle Ages occurred - some dismiss the term 'Dark Ages' completely now, others say this time period begins with Alfred the Great and ends with Richard III's defeat at Bosworth. A strict start and end date is of little consequence to this book, as the authors look at seven women who lived in the centuries from roughly 1000 through 1400. And, though Eleanor of Aquitaine is not one of the women profiled in the book (sad face), she does make an appearance and I quite enjoyed that she is given brief but proper due in the chapter dedicated to Blanche of Castile (her granddaughter): "Heading the party was John's mother, and the princesses grandmother, Eleanor of Aquitaine, an almost fabulous queen who had astounded her contemporaries 50 years earlier by coolly deserting one king (Louis VII of France) to marry another (Henry II of England and Anjou), and who, at the age of 80, still played an active role in politics" (page 97). Page 99 then shows a photograph of Eleanor's effigy at Fontevraud Abbey, next to her favorite son, Richard. As an aside, I am forever amused that she was laid to rest next to her son, instead of Henry II, who was also entombed there. Whether this was purposeful planning or not, one would assume she would not want to spend eternity next to the husband who imprisoned her for years due to her habit of helping their sons rebel against him. While Henry was a great king, he was not a great husband (as viewed from our century, at least, though it would have been of little matter in the 12th century).

Now, back to the book...

Question: Even in the Middle Ages, people knew the world was not flat. And this fact was about them knowing this was known in 1978. So why the heck were we still taught in the 90s that people in that time thought the world was flat? It makes no sense.

I like that the authors use the first section of the book to give background and general information, not only about women in the Middle Ages, but in history as well. For readers who do not know much about this time period, this is valuable to give some insight into life for women in a time so different from our own - or even those in 1978 when this was first published.

The second section is devoted to seven specific women, spanning the centuries of the Middle Ages. I loved that the authors profiled women from all over Europe, not just England (though I do love England quite a bit). Here we meet Hildegarde a German nun who lived in the 1100s; Blanche of Castile (Eleanor's granddaughter), who became queen of France; Eleanor de Montfort, youngest daughter of King John (and another granddaughter to Eleanor of Aquitaine - are you picking up on her importance yet?);Agnes li Patiniere, a textile worker who lived in Flanders in the 1200s; Alice Beynet, who lived in England; Margherita Dantini, an Italian woman whose home, built by her husband (an Italian merchant) still stands today - or least did so at the time of publication; and finally, Margaret Paston, of whom we know so much about because of the multitudes of correspondences between her and her husband and sons that survived the Wars of the Roses.

These women are so fascinating because of the varied lives they lived. From peasant women, to the granddaughters of queens. The authors present these women as they deserve. They are made real, not just distant figures in time, as people who might have existed. There are existing documents that prove as much. It was great to see these women stand on their own and not be defined by the men in their lives, whether that be their fathers or brothers or husbands. This is important, because when we think of that time period, we don't think of women being successful in their own right in a very male-dominated society.

The only thing that bothered me was the photos. They're all black and white, and directly on the page with the text - no fancy glossy paper stuck in the middle of the book here. I would have loved to see some of these paintings in color, they would have been beautiful On page 35 there was also a chart of consanguinity from the 13th century which I would love to see in a more clear photo. You can't read the writing at all, so it would have been helpful to have not only the full photo, but then a close-up of the writing so it would actually be legible.

Otherwise, I have no real complaints. Frances and Joseph Gies were fantastic and thoughtful researchers who were thorough in their work. Both have passed away now, but have left many books behind to introduce the new readers to the world in the Middle Ages. Highly recommended.

Magna Carta: The Birth of Liberty

Rating: 5 Stars

I heart Dan Jones. He is my favorite historian and if he wrote a book about watching paint dry, I would read it because he is the kind of writer who could make it so engaging you would not realize how boring the topic actually is.

Luckily, he writes about people and things that are already very decidedly NOT boring - namely my two favorite families - the Plantagenets and the Tudors - and the eras in which they lived.

Magna Carta is perhaps the most misused document in the history of the world. It had nothing to do with democracy, as Jones makes very clear, and everything to do with the rights of the barons who were opposing King John at an incredibly tumultuous time in the kingdom. Yet in the 800 years since its initial issue, it has threaded its way through a myriad of other documents, most notably the Declaration of Independence in 1776. As Jones recounts, even in 2014 then-Prime Minister David Cameron pledged that all the children in the UK would study the document because "...its principals shine as brightly as ever, and they paved the way for the democracy, the equality, the respect an the laws that make Britain" (pgs 198-199). Yet studying the actual text of the document itself (which you can do without going to DC or England, thanks to the fact that the original 1215 charter is included in its entirety in Appendix A) shows that was not its purpose at all. In fact, many of the clauses did just the opposite and its purpose was to limit the power of the king, as well as certain groups of people such as women and Jews (page 198). Yet this great myth has been perpetuated for years and years that Magna Carta is the basis of democracy, something the authors of it would definitely disagree with, and the idea would have been completely foreign to them.

Th author does a fantastic job taking us back in time to 1215 to see why the document was even written in the first place. Due to John's complete lack of ability to be a good king, the aristocracy took it upon themselves to put John in his place, so to speak. Naturally, John had no intention of adhering to the agreement signed that day at Runnymede. Perhaps this quote from the book best sums up John, better than anything I have read before:

"People loathed John. For all the attempts that have been made by historians to rehabilitate his reputation, any study of England's third Plantagenet ruler must account for the fact that he was a cruel and unpleasant man, a second-rate soldier, and a slippery, faithless, interfering, uninspiring king. It is true that at times John was no less ruthless than his brother Richard, nor any less manipulative than his father, Henry. Kings in this age were not supposed or expected to be nice...But if John's relatives shared some of his worst traits, he shared almost none of their best" (page 28).

I loved this book for many reasons. In addition to its in-depth look at the events leading up to, and after Magna Carta was first signed, I greatly appreciated the nod to Eleanor of Aquitaine. Some historians are quick to downplay her importance or dismiss her altogether, but Jones does not do that. Instead he says, among other things, "On March 31, 1204, John's spirited but ancient mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine, died at eighty-two. Her formidable presence had kept some order in the empire's south, but her death prompted the King of Castile to invade Gascony" (page 33).

Another historical figure who is finally getting his due in general is that of William Marshal, who I also find highly fascinating. I am always curious how the early Plantagenet rulers can even be discussed without mention of the greatest knight in England's history, but Jones makes sure to note his presence and importance whenever necessary. He served five kings and did his best to ensure order was kept (or restored when John did something stupid) - Henry the Young King (crowned while Henry II lived, but never given any real power, thus leading to his rebellion. He died before his father though, and would never see his way to the throne), Henry II, Richard I, John, and Henry III.

Despite the short length of the book, 200 pages exactly of text discounting the appendixes, it is packed full of information. The pages are peppered with footnotes, with additional notes after Appendix C and before the substantial bibliography. There are two maps: one showing England in John's time and the other detailing the whole of the Plantagenet empire in what is now France, both at its height in 1189 and then after John lost several territories by 1215. Appendix A is Magna Carta 1215, Appendix B lists "The Enforcers of the Magna Carta" and gives a brief one-paragraph summary of each of the 25 baron who were supposed to enforce the charter as it was written, and Appendix C is a timeline of important events in the 900 years since Henry I became King of England and first granted a charter which listed similar clauses as Magna Carta. It also details some of the critical events leading up to 1215, as well as various events in the aftermath, including reissues of the charter by Henry III and Edward I. Also included are references to the charter in the following centuries up to 2015, the 800th anniversary.

While highly informative, this is still an easily accessible read. Dan Jones is a fantastic writer who conveys the importance of what he is writing without dumbing anything down. 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.

The Last Knight: The Twilight of the Middle Ages and the Birth of the Modern Era

Rating: 3.5 Stars

While this book is not without its flaws, I feel like other readers and I must have read a completely different book. I found it to be a good read about a highly important historical figure who sometimes is forgotten - though I am not sure how. it so happened that a publisher had offered me a copy of another book about John of Gaunt so I read them around the same time and recommend both, as each has kind of a different focus. While they are both at the core biographies of John of Gaunt, the subtitle is important for this one. it is much more about the time period and the great changes taking place, as it is about the Duke of Lancaster.

Norman Cantor is still a well-known medieval author, despite him having passed away in 2004. I enjoy his works, have read some and have many more on my to-read list. So, I know that he has the knowledge necessary to write about his topics. Even well-versed authors are not completely immune to suppositions, and there were quite a few, but I couldn't not keep reading the book. One reason for all those suppositions is that, despite the fact that we have pages and pages, roughly 500 or so, of Gaunt's business letters and documents,there is not one single personal letter of his that has survived to come down to us through the centuries. The author also makes the point on page 81 that, "There is no evidence from late medieval England that aristocrats wrote personal letters at that time." It doesn't mean they didn't, it just means that so far none have been found. Such a shame that if they did so, we will never have these personal letters to read, to better understand the people we admire or disdain from afar (Believe me - what I would not give for an authentic cache of letters to be discovered somewhere in England or Aquitaine penned by Eleanor herself, detailing events in her life that took her from Louis' side as Queen Consort of France to Henry's side as Queen Consort of England!)

FYI: I am almost embarrassed to admit this, and maybe it is just because my head is so full of Henrys and Edwards and such, that I can't keep all the family trees straight (especially when they overlap multiple times), but I don't know how it never occurred to me before that Prince Henry the Navigator was Gaunt's grandson. I don't know why it took so long for me to make the connection. Yikes.

The book is not organized in a way that some readers might enjoy. Instead of being a straight biography of John of Gaunt, the Duke of Lancaster, his life story is told by topic. So, yes the book jumps around in time quite a bit, but you also have to keep in mind that subtitle I mentioned. It is about Lancaster, but also about the world he grew up in and the changes that took place to begin ushering in the modern world. Topics include the broad 'Old Europe', then the great families of the age, women, warriors, peasants, politics, and eve a whole chapter revolving around Chaucer. I liked the organization, because one chapter you get a sense of general life in that time, as well as how Lancaster fit into the world and how the various topics impacted him, and he them. That background information is especially important for those who have little knowledge to begin with, while still focusing on the subject of the book.

As I said before, the book is not without its flaws. There is a lot of supposition throughout. It is his final book published before his death (both occurred in 2004; a book about Alexander the Great was published posthumously in 2005) and I still found it to be adequate. I don't know that I would call it his best book, but Cantor had the ability to make even uninteresting aspects of the Middle Ages engaging. There is one quote though that I had a good chuckle at, not because it was ha-ha funny, but because it was just kind of a silly statement: "Undoubtedly Gaunt would have loved to wear the crown. But that was outside the realm of possibility. Above all Gaunt was a Plantagenet who wanted to maintain the dignity of the bloodlines of his family" (page 197). I mean, I seriously almost snorted at that line. While it is likely true that the Duke of Lancaster secretly coveted the throne of England (and really, he was already the richest man in the country and wielded about the same control), he would never have really overthrown his nephew Richard II, son of his elder brother, Edward the Black Prince. In all honesty he probably should have, because Richard II was not the greatest of kings, but that part might be true. The second part is what had me chortling, the 'dignity' of the Plantagenets. Just look at what Eleanor and Henry II's sons did in the many years their father was on the throne! They rebelled against him how many times (twice - guided by Eleanor herself) in order to get more power. Richard practically hounded his father to death for the crown after Henry the Young King (older brother) and Geoffrey (younger brother) both died, and John was easily one of the worst kings in the history of England.

Even with that quote, I can still say that I would recommend this volume. Cantor has written numerous texts about the Middle Ages and knows what he is talking about. It is fairly short, the hardcover volume I discovered at half-Price Books is only 241 pages. Give it a go and see what you think!

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.

She-Wolves: The Women Who Ruled England Before Elizabeth

Rating: 4 Stars

I am almost embarrassed by how short this review is going to be. Typically as I read, I update my progress on Goodreads and make notes of things I want to be sure to mention when I review a particular book. There are some books that are so inaccurate or terrible that I am constantly stopping to make a note of this or that. There are some books that bore me so much, I end up just turning pages without REALLY reading just to be done.

And then there are books like this, stories that I am so familiar and comfortable with, I breeze through and am done with the book in no time. Sadly still though, without hardly a note to speak of.

If you have been reading my blog for a while, or know me at all, you might recall that Eleanor of Aquitaine is a heroine of mine. She is the first reason I picked up this book. The second reason is that it is always refreshing to me to see strong female rulers BESIDES Elizabeth getting the credit and spotlight they deserve. Despite the fact that save for one, Mary I, none of the women ruled on their own, they still wielded great power and contributed to the making of England.

I must first point out, the title is not something I care for. Perhaps this is because I associate the term 'she-wolf' with Isabella, wife of Edward II. She has been referred to through the centuries as Isabella, She-Wolf of France, and not always in a very nice way. Now to be fair, she and her lover Roger Mortimer did have Edward deposed and murdered so it is kind of fitting, but thus it is not how I want Eleanor of Aquitaine referred to as well. Eleanor might have incited her sons into rebellion against their father. More than once. But she did not have him murdered. Okay, so he basically died because Richard all but hounded him to death, but it is not exactly the same. It's not.

Anyway.

It might surprise some readers then that the book begins, not with any of these she-wolves, but with a fifteen year old boy. Edward VI is dying, slowly and painfully. The Tudor dynasty that Henry VIII literally killed for is on the verge of collapse because it just can not be accepted that a woman might be able to rule the country. At least, not an independent, adult woman. Readers are introduced to the whole background, how Mary and Elizabeth were excluded from the succession in Edward's last days, how Jane would be proclaimed queen, and the country saved from a return to the old faith. And yet, despite the fact that these men surrounding Edward feared what might happen were a woman to rule, we then step back in time to see that this did, in fact, happen already and in some cases, quite successfully.

First there is Matilda, daughter of Henry I who lost her brother when the White Ship sank and Henry found himself without a legitimate male heir. Despite demanding loyalty be sworn to Matilda as next in line, the moment Henry had passed those loyalties quickly shifted and suddenly Stephen, Henry's nephew was proclaimed king. The result was a bloody and violent civil war that raged for years and all but tore England apart. It only ended when Stephen agreed that Matilda's son Henry would succeed him in place of his own son. It helped that his own son passed away and would therefore been unable to rule, on account of the being dead and all.

As with other books of similar content, it took too long to get to the section about Eleanor, and even as I was reading it flew by too quickly. But that is a personal thing, as anyone else who might be far less invested in Eleanor's story will not think so. We follow Eleanor from her days in Aquitaine, to the court of France where she first became a queen, then back to Aquitaine after her annulment and quickly on to England where she arrives as queen of England to Henry II. There is a reason her chapter is titled, "An Incomparable Woman". In fact, there are many. But you'll have to find those reasons for yourself, as her story is so remarkable that justice is not done to it when hearing only the summary.

After Eleanor comes Isabella, as mentioned above. Her story is an interesting one to be sure, another I know well. One can hardly fault her for eventually resorting to the violence that she (likely) ordered. From the start, Isabella was treated as though she were in the way in her own marriage. Edward II was nothing like his father Edward I. He spent his time with hobbies deemed below his station - I mean, he was the king, shouldn't he be allowed to do whatever he wants? But no, everyone was up in a huge tizzy because he enjoyed what were referred to as 'rustic pursuits'. Things like swimming, rowing, digging ditches, thatching houses, etc. The digging ditches thing always confused me, I mean what did he do, just go around the castle grounds digging random ditches? This part is never really explained in any book I have read of them thus far, but come on. Let the king do what he wants, as long as his mind is also on the keeping the realm safe. The problem was, Edward II was not really interested in battles and military; he preferred hanging out with his favorites and this left little room in his life for Isabella, who suffered great indignities at times for the sake of these male courtiers.

The last she-wolf we meet before Mary I is Margaret of Anjou, who was in the unenviable position of being married to King Henry VI. He'd not have been such a terrible king had he been mentally stronger than he was. But during the periods of time when he lapsed into a king of trance and didn't emerge for months, it was easy for usurpers to claw their way toward the throne. Their collective story remains one of the saddest for me in the whole of England's history. In those times that Henry VI was basically a vegetable, Margaret had to work twice as hard to hold the kingdom and her son's inheritance together. Then Henry would become lucid again, but never exhibited the strong characteristics needed in such turbulent times. Eventually Margaret would lose both her husband (likely murdered on Edward IV's orders) and her son (battle) and end her days living in Anjou once again without anything to show for having once been Queen of England.

The text then ends where it began, with the death of of Edward VI. The discussion turns to Mary, the challenges she faced both before and during her rule, and finally her death and a brief look at Elizabeth's rule. If you are interested in further reading specifically about Mary - which I highly suggest, as she has gotten the short end of the stick for the last 450 years - check out the books I have reviewed about her located under the Tudor tag here, or on my Goodreads Tudor shelf. She deserves a second look, for certain.

Additional material that I find especially helpful were the family trees located just before each section. Even someone with a lot of background knowledge of the rulers in each period still might find it easy to mix up siblings and cousins and such. New readers will also find it helpful to see how these women were all related to one another either by marriage or blood, down through the centuries. It really is amazing how much we are able to know about so many people who lived so many centuries ago. Almost 1,000 years separates us from Matilda and Eleanor. While there are many things we will likely never know, there are still documents and decrees and such that find their way to the light for eager amateur and professional historians alike. We are also given maps of each period, in order to show how England's claim to continental lands grew and shrank over the centuries. Again, a very helpful resource especially for those new to the subject.

Overall, this is a highly engaging, well-written account of women who ruled in a time when that was all but unheard of. These women faced major obstacles time and again; some they overcame, some they did not. But their stories are worthy of being told. Highly recommended.

The Year 1000: What Life Was Like at the Turn of the First Millennium

Rating: 5 Stars

Review:

The Anglo-Saxon world in England holds a special place in my heart and I am forever fascinated by the likes of Alfred and Aethelstan. It never ceases to amaze me how Engla-land is the same physical place that would in the future be ruled by the likes of Henry II, Edward IV and Henry VIII. This is a wonderful little gem of a book that did not disappoint, despite coming in at 200 pages. My concern with slim volumes such as this, especially when dealing with a topic near and dear to my heart, is the potential for lacking detail and misinformation - the gossip is always better than the actual story (at least according to the Dark History series, I suppose). I was pleasantly surprised by how much detail was included and the consistent referencing to contemporary sources provides further validity to the presentation. And of course, I was glad to see several appearances by Alfred, despite his death a century before.

The text begins with an explanation of the Julius Work Calendar - a calendar that has somehow, against all odds (and Henry VIII"s rage and ambition), come down to us from the year 1020. A photograph is also included of the January page, of which my only complaint is that it is in black and white and I'd very much like to see color photographs of the pages. The authors give a brief description of the calendar and its purpose - noting the abundance of holy days and high days marking the pages. They likely conclude this document was of most religious importance, and could have been an instructional manual for monks who had recently joined the order.

Following, the book is divided in twelve chapters, by month. The cover page for each chapter includes a reproduction of a drawing taken from the corresponding page of the original calendar. Again, in this instance I would have liked to have seen the actual page, to examine it in color. A particular instance I enjoyed in the January chapter included the discrepancies having to do with when Easter was to be celebrated and also the debate over dating the birth of Christ. It has never occurred to me before that idea of zero was not in use, as this was not needed in a world which still counted by Roman numerals. The authors point out that since zero was not an accepted concept, dating was off by a year due to missing that 12 months from 0-1. They the address how Dionysius then mis-dated Christ's birth, based on when Herod died, pointing out that Christ was likely born in at most 4 BC, perhaps further back. As a result, the so-called Christian calendar is slightly off, though I think at this point no one is terribly concerned about it anymore - can you imagine trying to change centuries of thinking? Quite simply, not possible. So we accept these inaccuracies while keeping the bigger picture in mind.

Something I have mentioned in previous books about this era include my interest in how words and names have evolved. This volume covers this as well, how Angla-lond/land evolved in to England, Angle-ish to English, etc. I also found this quote to be of interest:

"The Anglo-Saxons could swear to do something, or could swear by something, but there is no record of them swearing at anything at all" (page 31).

The author mentions with this that the curse words we know today likely came from Holland in the later Middle Ages - though I would like to know more about how this conclusion was reached and what documents might still exist to show this exchange of cultural information. He also says that no obscenities occur in Anglo-Saxon documents that survive. This is interesting to think about, but one must also consider the fact that of the documents that do survive, much of the material was written by scholars and monks. Curse would would likely have been at odds with the subjects they were writing about, though perhaps I am off the mark in my own conclusion? This is something I would like to learn more about and will be in search of information about this soon.

Another note on language - it was in this time period that all humans were referred to as menn and mann was the word for human. So, there are two conclusions we could draw from this. Either the Anglo-Saxons had a much better grip on gender-equality than we do today, or they were elevating the status of men over women and encompassing both genders into one term. It might be easy to dismiss this as the latter, were it not for the abundance of wills from this time period in which fathers time and again left money and property to maintain to eldest daughters. 

There are plenty of amusing details included here, such as the fact that even 1000 years ago, chicken soup was recommended for its "soothing and restorative powers." A-MEN! There's nothing I like more than homemade chicken noodle soup when I'm sick, how neat that this is something that has not changed since early times.

The authors also discuss life for the monks in the monasteries and daily life there. As monks were discouraged from speaking vocally throughout the day, they often communicated  during meals and such with a variety of some 127 gestures and signs. The monks are compared baseball coaches in our time, albeit asking to pass the salt instead of signaling to steal third. It is an amusing image to conjure, the men at their tables, hands waving about as they speak without speaking. I'd like to see the document containing all 127 signs, though many are described here in the text.

In all, this is neat month-by-month look at this far-away time that almost seems unreal now in its simplicity. I can't imagine living in a time without noise of a large city - though I would very much like to experience it. To have no traffic noise, no neighbors blaring televisions and music, no hum of a refrigerator. Life would certainly have been both easier and more difficult at the same time. Highly recommended read.

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.

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.