NetGalley ARC | Arthur, Prince of Wales: Henry VIII’s Lost Brother

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

Rating | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

This is a must-read for anyone who is interested in the Tudor dynasty.

For far too long, Arthur has been an afterthought - his name bandied about only in regards to whether or not he and his wife, the indomitable Catherina of Aragon (my favorite), consummated their marriage before he died unexpectedly a few months after the ceremony.

Here, the author uses his meticulous research to bring Arthur to life, to show us there is so much to the young man who died before he could reach his full potential.

And believe me, this loss is so much more devastating than it appears.

We do not know for sure what kind of king Arthur would have been (being raised by Henry VII, it is not outside the bounds of reality to suspect he could have become as paranoid and frugal. Nor should we completely doubt he might have been any less of a tyrant than Henry VIII). However, in Catherine of Aragon, Arthur would have had a suitable match that possibly could have curbed some of the negative impulses. Both had been raised from birth to prepare for their ascent to a throne, and given responsibilities and the education to ensure they were ready. Arthur's little brother Henry was given no such duties and was outmatched and outwitted by Catherine at every turn once he sought a divorce. He was still a highly-educated prince, but Henry's destination before Arthur's death was likely the Church. It's no wonder as to why Anne Boleyn told him to stop going head-to-head with her - Catherine bested him in any exchange.

Even though his life was short, Arthur lived through one of England's most turbulent periods. Henry VII's reign was never truly secure, nor was his claim to the throne any stronger than anyone else's (and honestly, his was a lot weaker). But Arthur's birth represented just the security Henry VII sought.

Surviving documents from Arthur's life show just how well he'd been prepared to wear the crown when his time came. By the age of three he'd been sent to the Welsh border as the Prince of Wales. Though he did not rule on his own given his age, these court documents show a well-run government moving briskly and competently along. As he grew, Arthur took on more of a role within this government, seeing courtiers and petitioners, continuing his education, making decisions, determined to do his duty as the future king.

Learning more about Arthur in relation to those around him was the most intriguing part of this book for me - especially in regards to Catherine. We know that after Arthur's death, Catherine was left in limbo for years. We also know that Prince Henry was determined to marry her even as his father dragged his feet, and that Prince Henry married her as soon he became King Henry. Despite what would come two decades later, Catherina and Henry seem much more of some kind of a love match than Catherine and Arthur had been, though both marriages would obviously have served their countries well. The reason I say so is only because I discovered through this text that neither Catherine nor Arthur made any effort to learn one another's primary language, in all the years they were betrothed. It was not until Catherine married Henry that she began to fully immerse herself in the English language. Arthur made no effort to learn Spanish, so the couple communicated in French and Latin.

The author also does a fantastic job dispelling the myths over Arthur's supposed sickly health. There's this perception, because of his early death, that Henry VII constantly worried for his son because of poor health. Surviving evidence shows quite the opposite - that he was a lively, active boy. He was not frail, but actually a strong young man gifted at both dance and archery.

While there is still so much we will never know for certain. the author's thorough research and use of surviving sources serves the text well. He fleshes out someone who has been confined to the shadowy edges of history for far too long, and brings the boy-who-would've-been-king to life.

Highly recommended.

NetGalley ARC | Crime and Punishment in Tudor England

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

Rating | ⭐⭐

This text presents, as the title indicates, crime and punishment in Tudor England. Though I would consider myself fairly knowledgable in that area, I can never pass up books likes this because I am always hoping to learn more about a period in history that continues to capture my attention.

The Tudor century+18 saw massive social upheaval that impacted every single person in the country - and beyond. From Henry VII to his granddaughter Elizabeth I, the time period is flush with world-changing events. Crime and punishment, however, remained straight up medieval.

We see it all here - treason, suspected treason, no-treason-but-I'm-paranoid, and so much more. There are cases of blackmail, failed insurrections, conmen, kidnappings, and beyond. Plus all the details of the hangings, burning-at-the-stakes, and beheadings.

I simply could not with the author's voice and tone throughout the book. Incredibly flippant at times and attempts at humor that were not actually funny. I have a difficult time with non-fiction books where the author is sarcastic or casual about the topic. In memoirs and autibiographies, that's one thing. But in books like this, where the author should simply present the facts and not add their own snarky commentary? No thanks. She also kept referring to herself as "this author". It was annoying.

The structure of the text was also frustrating. The crimes were listed in alphabetical order, so there was no real structure to speak of. As a result, there is not any real analysis to be found, or themes to explore. The oversimplification of the topic does not allow for it.

There are some interesting stories here but as a whole, I would not recommend.

NetGalley ARC | The Eight King Henrys of England

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

Rating ⭐

So this review will actually be pretty brief because I will be honest that I did not finish the book.

Shocking, as it covers some of my most favorite time periods.

But a terrible slander occurred attempting to - either accidentally or on purpose - stain the reputation of my beloved Eleanor of Aquitaine. At best it was poor research; at worst it was lazy research. Neither of which I can abide.

I made it through the reign of Henry I, chugging along nicely. Then came the chapter I was most excited about, because Eleanor was sure to receive several mentions over the course of Henry II's reign.

Yet one of the very first appearances of Eleanor early on in Henry II's chapter mentions Eleanor on Crusade with her first husband, Louis VII. The author states, "Her alleged sexual relationship with her uncle, Raymond, Prince of Antioch, led to the end of her marriage."

Nope nope nope.

First, there's no actual evidence that she had an affair with Raymond. He was the only family she had left besides her sister, and they had not seen each other in several years. These rumors did not start until a couple decades later, likely because we do not know what actually happened that made Eleanor refuse to leave Antioch in the first place. Had the two really had an affair, it would have been an immediate scandal. They were far more closely related than Eleanor and Louis (third cousins, once removed). Some contemporary chroniclers were already hostile to Eleanor, even in her lifetime and more most certainly after her death. Despite my love for the Middle Ages, it - and the entirety of human history - reeks of misogyny, and almost all of the chroniclers were men. Women who did write mainly lived in convents and wrote of their religious experiences. Even Christine de Pizan came along a couple hundred years after Eleanor.

Secondly, even if she had had an affair with her uncle, that is not what ended her marriage to Louis VII. Eleanor did not want to leave Antioch. She wanted Louis to join forces with Raymond, but he refused. She was forced to go by Louis, with some accounts stating he forcibly put her on the boat himself. When they returned from Crusade, Eleanor wanted nothing to do with her husband. It certainly did not help that she learned her uncle had been captured and beheaded at the Battle of Inab. They were guests of Pope Eugenius III after a slog of a trip to get back home.There had already been talk of getting the marriage annulled prior to this, and it was brought up once again. The Pope refused the request and at one point threatened excommunication if they did not attempt to work things out. He insisted they sleep together while there and of course Eleanor ended up pregnant again. She gave birth to their second daughter in 1150, and two years later was finally able to shake herself free from the marriage.

If you do not write accurately about someone I know so much about, how am I to know if you are writing accurately about others I know less about? It is hard to trust someone's words when events are massively misconstrued and no context or detail is given.

So is this continuing in the vein of those chroniclers from hundreds of years ago, or just lack of interest in further research? Yes, the book is about the eight Henrys, but Eleanor of Aquitaine was no small player in history.

Either way, not interested in anything else this book has to say.

NetGalley ARC | Henry VIII's Children: Legitimate and Illegitimate Sons and Daughters of the Tudor King

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

Rating | ⭐⭐⭐

I struggled a bit figuring out to even rate this one. There was definitely some author-bias and she was very pro-Cromwell and all of that came through clearly. Even so, this was a good read.

I think the children of Henry and his many wives are often overlooked, so I always appreciate books that focus on them specifically. Of all, Mary's childhood and teenage years show the most tumult. In the prime of their marriage, Henry was fully committed to the future Mary could have. He worked out deals regarding potential marriages, and the pageantry surrounding her birth indicated that all would be well and more children would come.

They would, of course, but no others would survive born of Catherine and Henry. Others too, with mistresses or wives, but the celebrations since Mary would not be duplicated until Edward came along and Jane had the good fortune to pass before Henry grew tired of her.

The main focus here are the four children officially recognized as Henry's heirs - Mary I, Henry Fitzroy, Elizabeth I and Edward VI. I appreciated Fitzroy's inclusion, and the depth with which the author discussed his life, as she did the lives of his siblings. I feel like so often, Fitzroy is kind of shuffled aside because he was not legitimate, and sometimes people do not realize how close he came to the throne. It's likely that Henry would have changed the rules of succession to see Fitzroy succeed him. But he died young at 17, though older than the others who died young as well - even Edward VI, who only made it to 15. Imagine a whole different Tudor world, potentially without ever seeing the other three take the throne. 

I honestly can not imagine growing up with the constant threat that your life could change on a whim, given Henry's paranoia and cruelty. Mary experienced the trauma most accutely, having been ripped from her mother's arms and never allowed to see each other again, even as Catherine was dying. It does not excuse the executions that took place under Mary's reign, but it certainly explains why she turned out the way she did, trying so hard to grasp onto a world that no longer existed.

The author discusses at length the childhoods of Henry's children. She details the make-up of their households, their teachers and nurses, the locations they lived or traveled to, and amounts of money spent for upkeep. These amounts are especially staggering in some cases when looked at in today's numbers.

Henry knew firsthand the dangers of not having enough sons. He was the spare, not considered for kingship, yet upon Arthur's death Henry's life changed immediately and drastically. Given how much time he suddenly spent with his own father, it is easy to see how he became paranoid over the succession. Henry would have also known of the Pretenders and others' claims to the crown of England. He knew he must have sons to continue the family line, yet over and over stillbirths and miscarriages stole heir after heir.

Despite the main focus being on the four acknowledged children, the author also explores the possible children that Henry never claimed. I have read many books about the Tudors over the years and there are so many varying opinions, yet just enough evidence to tell us exactly...nothing concrete.

It's likely that at least one of Mary Boleyn's children was fathered by Henry, but no record exists to tell us for sure. As for many of the others, I have a hard time believing that Henry really had that many illigitimate children. During the course of his marriage to Catherine, he had an affair with Bessie Blount, Fitzroy's mother. Then likely Mary, and the last few years of his first marriage were spent obsessed with Mary's sister Anne.

Henry was so obsessed, in fact, it is quite possible he would do nothing to risk finally being able to marry her and had no other affairs in that time. That is a rather large chunk of time, but Henry was always childlike in pursuit of something he really wanted when told he could not have it.

It is also curious that, if Henry did have other children with women who were unmarried at the time, why he did not acknowledge and raise them as he did Fitzroy. It's understandable why he did not do this with Mary's second child (if the boy was actually his), because Mary was married at the time and the children, Catherine and Henry, were raised belonging to her husband William. But Fitzroy's mother gave birth to their son, and a few years later was married off. This is also the affair that lasted the longest, something like seven or eight years.

Considering all of this, it is hard to see when Henry would have had time for numerous other affairs and children. I'm not saying there could not be others, I just think the varying claims by different authors make it all seem unlikely because no one can even agree on a number or what constitutes actual evidence. I've seen some authors suggest Henry fathered as many children as four or five others besides those most likely to be his (again, Mary's children). There's simply not enough evidence for this.

All things considered, I still found this a worthwhile read. The attention to detail of their childhoods was fantastic. I also appreciated seeing their stories overlap and how the siblings might have bonded, or not, as they grew under the watchful eye of their larger-than-life father. Mary knew him best, and suffered the most for it. Elizabeth and Edward were close as could be, given living arrangements. I wonder what they all thought of Fitzroy - Mary as having known of him, and the younger two being told of him later, perhaps? Elizabeth was only three when Fitzroy died, and Edward was born after.

Recommended.

NetGalley ARC | Henry VIII: A History of his Most Important Places and Events

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

Rating ⭐⭐⭐⭐

Henry VIII has been the subject of countless books both fiction and non-fiction, tv shows, and films. Nearly everyone with an interest in history knows his name, even if they know few other details. Once the ideal renaissance prince, he evolved into a cruel tyrant who everyone feared - even, especially, those closest to him.

For all that I have read on the Tudors and Henry specifically, I have never read a book like this. Here, his life is told through the lens of the places he lived, worked, and played, and thus the major events that took place at the various locations. I love this unique way of telling the story of his birth, life, and death.

The part that bums me out the most is, of course, the places that either no longer exist, or have been remodeled to the point that Henry would not recognize them today. I'm even happy to traipse about the ruins of the former palaces, as it is better than having nothing left at all. Greenwich Palace remains one of the biggest losses of my historical life. To have seen it in its prime...that would be magical. And what I would not give to see Nonsuch. This palace was unique because it is one that Henry had built from scratch. It stood until the end of the 17th century, then was demolished and this pains me to no end.

The author begins in London and highlights many of the palaces along the Thames, as well and Westminster and the Tower. From there we move to the countryside to the many hunting lodges and manor homes Henry used, and even across the channel to Calais where Henry and Francis met at the Field of the Cloth of Gold.

Even though I was familiar with all of these locations, the massive attention to detail was fantastic and I learned so much about the buildings themselves. The author presents each location and the events that took place in Henry's lifetime, and also lets readers know what these places look like today.

This text is well-researched and thorough. There were photos and sketches, which I found helpful but would always appreciate more. I love comparing the historical drawings with the landcape today, even when it makes me sad thinking about Nonsuch and Greenwich. I would absolutely recommend this to anyone with an interest in the time, even if you're already well-versed on Henry's life. It's a unique perspective and provides so much additional information.

Recommended.

NetGalley ARC | The Sweating Sickness Epidemic: Henry VIII's Greatest Fear

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

Rating ⭐⭐⭐⭐

Typically when you read books about the Tudors, the Sweating Sickness is always lurking, mentioned in varying amounts of detail depending on who it is impacting, when it pops up time and time again with no rhyme or reason. Hundreds or thousands are carried off at any given time and then it is gone as quickly as it appeared.

The Sweat might truly have been as, if not more, terrifying as The Plague. Of all of the diseases that those living in Tudor times, and through Henry VIII's reign in particular, had to deal with, it was the most mysterious. It remains that way today. We know almost nothing about it, what caused it first in 1485, why it struck England and Wales ALMOST exclusively, and why it nearly completely disappeared after the last major outbreak in 1551 during Edward VI's short reign.

Anyone familiar with the Tudors knows that Henry VIII was a big ol' baby and massive hypochondriac. At the first sniffle or sneeze, he was off from London to the supposed safety of the countryside. Yet the Sweat was something he rightly feared, as it would cross all class boundaries and no one was safe, no matter the precautions they were able to take due to their wealth or lack of it. In the times where the disease was ravaging England, Henry would reduce his household and move only with the most necessary of men needed to run his government as they tried to outrun death. Yet it continued to strike everywhere, from cities to villages to the open countryside.

The text is massively well-researched and makes fantastic use of available historical documentation to give a more concrete understanding of just how devastating this disease was to England. The sheer amount of people who died is staggering, even if we do not have exact figures. It's kind of hard to be exact when everyone in the village is dead. I also appreciate so much that where info was not available, the author did not speculate or fill the book with 'maybe' and 'possibly'. Sometimes, especially when we are 500 years off, it is better to just present what we have and say we don't know for the rest.

Instead, Dr. Porter deals only in facts. We simply do not know anything about it except that it struck quickly and indiscriminately, so there was no time to prepare any kind of defense. Attempts were made as it appeared, but these remedies were ineffective at best, and aided the disease at worst.

Dr. Porter also notes the differences between the Sweat and the Plague, comparing symptoms, chances of survival, remedies, etc. I think this is important in helping people understand that it was not just one disease all the time, as sometimes happens to those unfamiliar with the period.

Very informative, highly recommended.

NetGalley ARC | How to Dress Like a Tudor

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

Rating ⭐⭐⭐⭐

Such a fun little gem of a book and I think it would be of interest not only for those who love all things Tudor, but for those with an interest in the history of fashion.

I requested this one just based on the title, so I did not know at the time that it was also a how-to guide for those wanting to make their own Tudor clothing.

The author is also a re-enactor of the medieval and Tudor periods, so her knowledge is vast and incredibly helpful for those wanting to get a start in doing the same. Authenticity is so important, so it's easy to see why guides like this would be very helpful.

The author also makes sure to include ALL who lived in the period, not just royalty, so there are a variety of choices. Obviously there were far more ordinary, every-day people - who were not allowed to wear any colors or cloth but the most basic garments. Sumptuary laws dictated what each class could wear and there could be heavy fines for anyone dressing above their station.

Something I also appreciated was that the author explained the history of clothing From Henry VII to Elizabeth I and how it evolved in such a short time. No one can ever accuse Henry VIII or Elizabeth I of being shy and their clothing certainly reflected their inflated opinions of themselves.

The author divided the pieces by women, men, and children. She descrobes each piece that would have been worn, the order they had to be put on, and how pieces evolved. I also liked that she included photos from the period as examples. Then there are the step-by-step guide for how to make the garments. I have never sewn a day in my life outside of school, but still found it really interesting. My daughter loves fashion and designing clothing so I think she would love this as well (she's 11), to see how clothing has changed over the centuries.

Highly recommended.

NetGalley ARC | Royal Mysteries of the Tudor Period

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

Rating ⭐⭐⭐⭐

This would be a fantastic starting point for those not as familiar with the Tudor dynasty as I am, or these events in particular. Even so, I found it to be an enjoyable read about some of my favorite mysteries from the time period. It's obvious that Dr. Venning knows the period well and the research is thorough. He covers the following people and the mystery surrounding them:

• the Pretenders, Simnel Lambert and Perkin Warbeck
• the fall of Anne Boleyn
• the death of Amy Robsart
• the death of Lord Darnley
• Mary's possible involvement in plots against Elizabeth

While discussing each of these, there is obvious overlap as the era moves from its beginning with Henry VII to its conclusion under Elizabeth I. There is plenty of additional information that provides a background for those unfamiliar with the key places and figures of the time.

First we have the Pretenders. The drastic differences in their treatment perhaps shows Henry VII's view of them as legitimate threats - not because either really was either of the Princes in the Tower, but because enough people at least believed or were intrigued by Warbeck. Given the fact that Warwick was already locked in the Tower, no one had any reason to believe Simnel's claims. It didn't help that Warbeck was still trying to claim he was the lost Plantagenet heir as he was locked in the Tower. And there could be no other end for him than execution. Henry needed to stabilize his country quickly and that was the only way for him to do it. Warbeck had been given too many chances. Warwick's execution is much harder for me to stomach however, as he was in no way a threat. He'd been a prisoner for over half his life and had little knowledge of the outside world.

I've got little to say about Anne Boleyn that I haven't already in past reviews. She is my least favorite queen, I can't stand her. She is not a feminist icon and had no inkling of what that would even mean, to be. She was gleeful in her torment of Mary and had no problem replacing the rightful queen despite very much not belonging on the throne. I don't think there is much of a mystery here though, as anyone with even miniscule knowledge of Henry VIII's mindset and behavior can attest. The charges against her were all clearly made up in order for Henry to get rid of her and I don't think anyone would argue otherwise. Despite my disdain for Anne, Henry is the real villain. After all, he requested the executioner before Anne was even found guilty, given travel distance. Once Anne fell from favor, she stood no chance. She's absolutely a victim of the regime, none of the charges were true (you'd think Cromwell would have at least made the fabricated evidence look realistic; for the majority of the locations she was said to be in when conducting the affairs, she was either pregnant or in another location, verified by court documentation of travel itineraries), but I still have little sympathy beyond this for her.

The death of Amy Robsart is perhaps the most intriguing to me. Robsart was the wife of Robert Dudley, Elizabeth's most favorite of all her favorites. Dudley was all too happy to abandon his wife for his queen. The day Robsart died she had sent all the servants away to the fair and was supposedly alone in the house. When everyone returned, she was dead at the bottom of the stairs. Dudley's enemies immediately accused him of murder and if there had ever been plans for him to divorce his wife and marry Elizabeth, it could never happen. However, it is highly unlikely Elizabeth would've ever married Dudley, no matter the circumstances. She truly was her father's daughter in every literal and figurative sense. I personally don't think she was ever 'scared' of marriage as has been suggested. I think she was a Tudor who knew the power of good PR and remained married to her country because that is what she wanted most. As for Robsart, there are plenty of theories, but again we will never know the truth. Some say she committed suicide because she was so destraught over her husband and the queen. I personally think there are far easier ways to committ suicide than by flinging oneself down the stairs and hoping for the best. Others have suggested she was ill (cancer or otherwise), and in her weakened condition she fell. Still others say Dudley hired someone, or killed her himself. This is one I would truly love an answer too. Amy Robsart deserves that much, considering her life and death were overshadowed by Elizabeth.

Mary, Queen of Scots, remains one of the most tragic figures in Stewart/Stuart and Tudor history. As a child she was sent to France, out of reach of Henry VIII. She was raised in a French court hostile to England and treated as a queen from a young age, long before actually becoming queen in 1559. She was a pawn that the French used to taunt the English. After her first husband's death, she had no choice but to return to Scotland, and it was all downhill from there. Mary had no true allies, though she did not know this. Her half brother, the Earl of Moray, played at supporting her, but this was all for show. Mary was truly alone, even after marrying Darnley. Personally I think Bothwell was as ruthless as Moray. I don't know that Mary knew of the plot to kill Darnley, but I would imagine she had to have some inkling that something was going on. As for Bothwell and that disastrous marriage, I don't believe she entered into it willingly. Perhaps she had once been enamored by Bothwell, but seeing his true face after Darnley's murder, I don't know that she would have chosen him.

As for Mary's participation in plots against Elizabeth once she was in captivity...honestly, what did she have to lose by that point? She'd been held for so long without cause. Elizabeth had no right in imprison a fellow monarch. This event alone is one that makes me absolutely abhor Elizabeth because she was such a baby about it. She talked so much of the grief and turmoil she felt in signing Mary's death warrant, but PLEASE save your fake tears and at least OWN IT. Cecil had been begging to execute Mary for YEARS. She knew that before the ink was even dry, after she had just barely finished signing it, that it would be delivered straight to him. Ugh.

One thing I absolutely hated about this book was that the author called Empress Matilda arrogant and usurper. Um, excuse me, but her Father Henry I named her as his heir. And yes, it was unlikely she could have followed him without a fight, and a fight is certainly what Stephen got. But Stephen was the usurper, NOT Matilda.

Whatever your opinion of these events, I think you will find great value in this text. Even if you already know quite a bit, having a refresher is nice. I love returning to books about the Tudors, no matter how many I have read. It's like greeting old friends, just that some of them might want to execute you for treason.

Recommended.

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.

NetGalley ARC | Castles of England

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

Rating ⭐⭐⭐1/2

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

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

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

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

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

NetGalley ARC | Usurpers: A New Look at Medieval Kings

 

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

Rating ⭐⭐⭐

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

Long version: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NetGalley ARC | The Killer of the Princes in the Tower: A New Suspect Revealed

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

Rating ⭐⭐⭐1/2 

Slogging through the writings of most pro-Ricardians is truly a chore and that aspect was no different in the case of this book. 

Side note - Matthew Lewis is the ONLY historian I consider it not a chore to read. His work is balanced and thoughtful. Plus he doesn't sob on television like Philippa Langley when it was discovered Richard really did have scoliosis, and weep and carry on as though she were in love with him. Good lord, she is awful.

Anyway.

In what is destined to remain the greatest unsolved mystery of all time unless QEII finally agrees to DNA testing, we have another author taking a crack at the disappearance of Edward IV's sons, Edward V and Richard, Duke of York.

The author is off-putting from the start and his arrogant tone was enough to make me roll my eyes a good many times. I seriously do not get what makes many Ricardians SO crazy about defending Richard III. The bottom line is this: Richard III knew there were rumors going around London that the boys had been murdered. There's no way he dud not hear them. If the boys were alive, all he had to do was trot them out, remind everyone they were declared illegitimate, then lock them back up again. He couldn't, because they were dead.

And yet, despite all the blow-harding about how terrible the Tudors were (seriously, chill), I find the author's theory terribly intriguing.

The mother of the princes, Elizabeth Woodville, had every reason to fear for their lives. The fifteenth-century England was used to thrones being stolen from their rightful heirs. That she would finally agree to send Richard (York) to Richard (soon-to-be-III) after he had custody of Edward (V) doesn't make sense to me, but perhaps she trusted he would not harm them, especially with the public so keenly aware that the boys were in his custody and should anything happen to them, it would be clear who was guilty. Honestly, I don't know. That is the one aspect I can't work out because at the end of the day...if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, Richard III ordered the boys killed so he could take the throne.

After Richard stole himself a fancy new crown and was declared king in July of 1483, the boys disappeared from view and were never seen again.

The main suspects remain: Richard III, Henry VII, and Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham.

Side note - please STOP with the Margaret Beaufort nonsense. You're being offensively silly at that point.

This book takes the approach of a police procedural and looks at all the historical evidence available to us.

Shakespeare and Thomas More are quoted often, though both had agendas of their own as they were writing and had to be very careful about what they said. Yet even as he does so, the author is extremely critical of both men and their writings.

When the author stuck strictly to the facts, I found it easy to move through the text quickly as he examined each suspect - usual and otherwise. When it boils down to the very basics of a procedural, one must have means, motive, and opportunity. Though the author is heavily biased in favor of Richard, if you are not careful he will have you believing there is no possible way any of the usual three could possibly be guilty.

It is at this point the author arrives at a suspect that I am thoroughly intrigued by, though I am still weighing how possible this would actually be.

With the author's new suspect, there is one glaring problem, however. There's the pesky old fact that there is actually very little known about this man or his life except where he might exist in court records, and hardly anything at all from his own hand. In the end we have no way to further examine this most interesting of suspects aside from look at what happened with Edward and Richard...as well as Arthur Tudor, Henry Tudor's heir. The connection here is tantalizing, but we have no way of ever knowing if there really is a link.

A few things didn't work for me. First and foremost as mentioned before, the author writes in a way I am not sure can be described in any other way than as pure cattiness at times. It is one thing to look at both perspectives, but it is entirely another to write off anything that disagrees with your point of view, only because it disagrees with your point of view.

The second thing, and even more pressing, is the complete lack of notes. I need documentation. I need sources. Especially in an instance like this, when you have a 500 year old murder mystery and there is so little to go on to begin with in some instances.

I would still recommend this one for those who are interested in the period and this murder mystery especially - just be aware that the author is not exactly diplomatic when dealing with anyone or anything that is not pro-Richard.

NetGalley ARC | The Brothers York: An English Tragedy

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

Rating ⭐⭐⭐⭐

Despite the claims of this bringing new information to light, or being a new look at the House of York, I don't think that is accurate. There was not really anything new here for me. Nevertheless, it is a fantastic look at the lives of the men who would practically tear England apart in order to claim the throne.

In the beginning Edward (IV), George (Duke of Clarence), and Richard (III) looked invincible. Brothers who would fight for one another in order to secure the crown. The House of York appeared unstoppable. Yet within a span of approximately thirty years it would all come crashing down. Everything we would expect in the fifteenth century played out in real life - rebellions, usurpers, executions.

The dynasty they'd attempted to carve out lasted but one generation before coming to a bloody end at Bosworth when Henry Tudor would emerge victorious. That in itself is the real tragedy. I enjoys the what-ifs and there are plenty to think about when it comes to this branch of the family. However, it also must be remembered that Edward IV took what was not his to begin with - Henry VI was the rightful ruler. Going back in time even further, what might England have looked like had Henry VI not been murdered, and his son eventually come to power?

Unfortunately we will never know, but it's fun to think about.

Despite not really giving new information, this is an incredibly in-depth analysis of the three brothers who would all come to untimely ends. The research is impeccable and the author plays it straight I felt, not biased in one way or another. A good 15% or so of the book is sources in fact, so the time spent on that part of the writing process is obvious. The facts are the facts, regardless of the motivation behind them. He presents those facts here and the reader may do with them what they wish.

My only real issue with the book is that it is not entirely about the three brothers. Edward consumes much of the book. George shines brightly for a time and is just as swiftly snuffed out. And then there's Richard. Ugh.

Side note: I think I have a bigger issue with certain Ricardians than I do Richard himself - looking at you, Philippa Langley. Getting all emotional and weepy just because it was discovered that he did in fact have scoliosis is fucking ridiculous. Ranting about him being treated unfairly for his supposed role in the murders of his nephews is also ridiculous. It is awful, and if he ordered it, he deserved his death at Bosworth. BUT. He was also a product of his time. Violent overthrow of a rightful king was no unheard of. What makes it so ugly was that they were children. Stop embarrassing yourself.

I do think Richard had them killed. The majority of Londoners thought the same thing once the princes were no longer seen. Richard would have heard these rumors. All he had to do was trot the boys out to show they were alive and well. He never did, because he couldn't. The Tudor propaganda machine was strong, but was not in high gear until later, long after people already believed Richard had ordered it. So, whatever.

Anyway.

As I was saying, much of the book is focused on Edward IV. This makes sense, as he ruled the longest. George and Richard are there in the thick of it, but never the focus until Edward's death when Richard made a play for the throne and it worked. I don't consider that much of an issue, as he was king for twenty years compared to George's zero years and Richard's two. On the other hand, Richard's reign is complex and deserves thorough examination. The death of the princes is touched on, but barely. They simply disappear. I feel like this is the defining thing, what people always associate with Richard, and should have been given more room. We truly do not know what happened despite dozens of theories, but it is possible to explain the events and still conclude we will likely never know.

The book does get slow; it took me months to read. Part of that is due to the fact that this is one of my least favorite eras in England's history. The Wars of the Roses in simplest terms is a bunch of jerks trying to steal something that is not theirs. And everyone dies.

The other part is that there is SO MUCH information, and so many important people to talk about in their relation to the three brothers.

This period was complex and complicated. The book can be dense at times. It is incredibly in-depth and you will be reminded of details you may have forgotten. So even though there is not necessarily any new content, it is still a very worthwhile contribution to books on this time and place.

Recommended.

NetGalley ARC | Elizabeth I: The Making of a Queen

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

Rating ⭐

I am not a fan of QEI at all. Much like with her mother, I don't see the point of the hype and they're both awful. I do, however, enjoy a good biography about anyone from the Tudor period whether I like them or not. In fact, Eric Ives' book on Anne Boleyn is one of my favorites of any Tudor figure. It is so well-written and researched, and I consider that the Bible of Anne Boleyn.

That is why I continue to read books about all of them, despite the fact that I like some much better than others. The one star for this book has nothing to do with the content regarding Elizabeth herself; I know her story as much as one can four hundred years on. Instead, it has everything to do with fact that this book is simply not well-written.

Writing about Elizabeth I is a massive undertaking. There has been so much written that it is hard to find a new angle without simply re-hashing everything that has come before. The author attempted to look at the events that created Elizabeth, that shaped her into the monarch she became. The problem with that is, there's no new information here, and at times the text wandered so far away from Elizabeth that some events had nothing to do with her at all, but instead impacted someone who impacted someone else, who in turn impacted Elizabeth. Even then, rarely did the event in question contribute to 'making' Elizabeth. As I read, the book definitely felt more like a dissertation than an actual book. After I finished and returned to the forward to read a bit more from the author, I discovered this is, in fact, a dissertation. She mentions that this is what she had hoped to write her undergraduate dissertation on, but was told it was too vague. Well, she very much succeeded in publishing a book that reads exactly like a dissertation.

Aside from the perceived bias that comes across in the writing, there were errors within the book that are unacceptable in even the most basic of Tudor literature. With this being an ARC, like with all the others I read, I allow for some errors. However, at this point there should not be factual errors that should have been caught/verified by an editor. There were also some assumptions made that historians have looked at and come to very different conclusions based on a wider body of evidence. Then, there were just the all-around clunky or awkward sentences that will hopefully be polished up before this goes to its final publication. The narrative begins with Henry VIII, and each of the women who had the misfortune of being married to him for any length of time. From there we visit the reigns of Edward VI, Jane, then Mary. Primarily the religious upheaval is discussed, and at several times none of the discussion relates directly to Elizabeth.

When discussing Catherine Howard's downfall

"The Viscountess Rochford was cornered and once again found herself informing on a queen and one of her relatives to a royal investigator" (12%).

Great, except this is not true. There is no sources that show at any point that Jane Boleyn ever gave any evidence against Anne and George, ever. To say that she did so 'again' when it came to Catherine and her liaisons is misleading, and quite frankly poor researching. There has been a great deal of scholarship in the last few years especially that looks at Jane and these exact situations.

At 24% Mary is referred to ad Edward's step-sister. They have the same father, which makes them half siblings, not step siblings. Come on. Seriously.

When discussing Mary, Queen of Scots toward the end of the book, the author tries to stress the point that Mary agreed to marry Bothwell quickly, even after the recent murder of her husband Lord Darnley. She dismisses the idea at all that Mary was coerced in any way and refers to the signatures Bothwell had collected from fellow courtiers encouraging the marriage. First of all, Bothwell was a psycho, so OF COURSE the other courtiers signed on to the idea of Mary and Bothwell getting married because everyone was afraid of him. Secondly, wouldn't those signatures themselves be a sign of such coercion, that Mary felt she had to do whatever it took to try to keep support? Plus, historians have questioned the authenticity of the document, either suggesting forgeries, or the signers themselves heeding Bothwell's demands for their signatures.

As with any book on Elizabeth or the dynasty in general, I typically would rather gouge my eyes out with an ice pick than read one more fucking sentence about how upset Elizabeth was when Mary was executed. Fuck all the way off with that garbage. The author notes that Elizabeth twice signed a death warrant for Mary, but then tore them up before they could be delivered and the order carried out. She goes on to say that Elizabeth did not learn of Mary's death until two days after it occurred, on February 10th, and that was angry at both Burghley and her Privy Council, as well as her personal secretary. William Davis, for carrying out the order. First of all, she signed the warrant. She KNEW Burghley was chomping at the bit to execute Mary, and had been practically begging to do it for YEARS. And if she was so careful to sign and then tear up the first two warrants, did she not think it odd that she signed a third one, and then it disappeared before she could tear it up as well? Where did she think it could have possibly gone? She knew the order would be carried out, so Burghley and Davis made sure people knew they were 'responsible', though it was Elizabeth who needed to sign the death warrant - WHICH SHE DID. Stop with this narrative about how she felt so awful and was so torn up about it. She wasn't.

At 92%, Arbella Stuart is introduced as a potential claimant to the throne. ARBELLA. ARBELLA. ARBELLA. Most certainly NOT ArAbella, as the author repeatedly wrote.

Though the book is undoubtedly biased in favor of Elizabeth and thus by extension Anne, I did appreciate the statements made in regards to Mary Tudor and Catherine Howard. To this day Mary is still referred to as 'Bloody Mary' and quite honestly, it is not a moniker that fits. Both Henry VIII and Elizabeth ended up executing as many people as Mary, if not more. So singling her out still as some kind of monster is tired at this point - about as tired as still accusing Jane Boleyn of giving evidence against Anne and George with literally no evidence of her having done so.

On Catherine Howard

"Her age and lack of maturity, as well as her naivety played major roles in her tragic story. She was also indiscreet and trusted too much in the wrong people" (13%).

On Mary Tudor

"The number of Catholics and conservative Anglicans that lost their lives during the Prayer Book Rebellion was far higher than those who were persecuted and executed for Protestantism under Mary Tudor, who would go on to be remembered in history as 'Bloody Mary' for her actions" (23%).

But then we get some nonsense like this, regarding Jane Grey and her father

"Her father, the Duke of Suffolk met the same fate on Tower Hill eleven days after his daughter went so bravely to her death all because he and several other powerful men felt Mary Tudor was not a suitable queen" (38%).

Um, no. They just wanted to keep the power for themselves, and thought the best way to do that was to bypass Henry's will and install Jane as queen. They thought she would be easier to control, because obviously Mary was fully capable of ruling on her own.

There are also just some weird/oddly phrased sentences. And a lot of missing commas. At least a couple times also where the wrong tense was used, or the tense changed within a sentence. This was not nearly as common, but I noticed it.

"Edward VI, the last Tudor male monarch, finally became consumed by his tuberculosis on Thursday 6 July 1553" (30%).

"It is worth noting here that it was not customary for the spouses of courtiers to attend court if they did not hold a position at court themselves this goes to explain why Amy did not often attend court with her husband" (48%).

There's also the examples of a bias toward Anne and Elizabeth, as compared to other figures discussed.

"There's no denying that Anne had been a passionate, exciting, reformist, dark, mysterious, and in many ways, a modern woman, living before her time during the 16th century" (7%).

"This moment in Elizabeth's life meant that Anne had finally triumphed over both her predecessor Catherine of Aragon and her successor Jane Seymour; for her daughter had succeeded both of their children and went on to become Henry VIII's most successful heir" (44%).

But THEN we get the very last line of the whole book, when the author strangely begins speaking of herself personally, and ends the entire book rather awkwardly when discussing how Elizabeth changed and adapted throughout her life and reign.

"Elizabeth I got this down to an art form and for me she is one of the greatest historical figures because of this" (94%).

Definitely not a strong or solid ending, and honestly not even a way one would likely end a dissertation. This was a quick read, but unfortunately I can not recommend it.