Review: The Boleyn King (Boleyn Trilogy #1) by Laura Andersen

An alternate history novel on what England's monarchy would have looked like had Anne Boleyn delivered a healthy, surviving boy to Henry VIII and subsequently never been executed.

I was a little disappointed by the fact that so many of the main characters were fictional. Obviously, being alternate history, you would expect some fictional characters, but I expected them to be characters born from the alternate event in question. For example, if they were the children of one of the four wives Henry VIII never wound up marrying, that would make sense, but that's not the case. Several fictional characters were born before the birth of Anne's son, sometimes to fictional parents too. I guess I expected everything leading up to the birth of Anne's surviving son to be historical and the only alternate events and people to be anything that would have happened after or as a result of that. The premise of this book is a great idea, but for me, it kind of loses some plausibility when you decide to make up things that occurred before the alternate event the book is based on.

Despite my long rant though, I did eventually get over my initial disappointment. Mostly. It wasn't what I expected but that doesn't mean I couldn't enjoy it for what it was. The character development was good, the plot interesting, the writing quality was very good.

It did feel a little like a young adult romance novel though. Fortunately, it's more than just that - there's also political intrigue, coup plots, mysteries, spying, etc. Marriage was an integral part of politics at the time, so it's to be expected that love and marriage play a large role in the book, but because the main characters are teens or in their early 20s, it had a very teen-like feel to it and I was surprised it wasn't marketed as young adult, as it easily could have been. Nothing wrong with young adult, I probably would have loved this book when I was younger but alas, I'm not that young anymore and usually look for something more mature.

Review: Rebellion's Message by Michael Jecks

Advanced review copy from publisher via NetGalley. My opinions are my own.

Release Date: August 1, 2016

A petty thief happens upon a coded message regarding the rebellion against Queen Mary in 1554 and winds up falsely accused of murder in the process.

Written with a tongue-in-cheek wit, it has a fun plot, but the characterization was lacking. The side characters didn't have much development, and the main character, though a likable rogue, sometimes came across as immature and not very bright. The author was using the main character's ignorance as a way to explain things to the reader (ie, someone explains it to the main character so it gets explained to the reader too). The downside to this is it makes the main character seem stupid but admittedly, the immaturity was often a part of the humor too so sometimes the author got away with it.

It's a good read if you're looking for something quick and light but don't expect too much from the characters.

Review: Médicis Daughter: A Novel of Marguerite de Valois by Sophie Perinot

Advanced review copy from publisher via NetGalley. My opinions are my own.

Release Date: December 1, 2015

So many novels focus so much on Catherine de Medici, Queen of France, that it was good to see something paying more attention to her daughter, Margot.

It is well written, even if it is in present tense which isn't my favorite. It's also written from Margot's first person point of view, beginning with her as a child. Over the first half of the book, we see her growing up, which is great for character development, but also means that much of it is about her teenage crush on the Duc de Guise. While it is not a one dimensional romance, it's also not hugely multi-dimensional either. There were many political events going on but we only saw them from Margot's perspective, which was mostly in how it related to the Duc de Guise or Margot's marriage/prospects. I suppose this is to be expected of a teenage princess in the 16th century though but what annoyed me was Margot desire for power and influence such as her mother has, yet she does nothing to gain it because she's so obsessed with Guise and therefore winds up as nothing but a pawn.

None of this is to say it wasn't an enjoyable read though. It's easy to read, the characters are engaging and it was interesting to watch Margot grow and learn. The last quarter of the book in particular was the highlight, as Margot developed a more worldly perspective in the face of the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre and finally came into her own. I am hoping there will be a sequel because I know Margot's life after the massacre was also very eventful and I think Perinot could tell it well.

Review: Murder in the Queen's Wardrobe by Kathy Lynn Emerson

Advance review copy from NetGalley, my opinions are my own.
Release date: March 1, 2015

Rosamond Jaffrey reluctantly takes a position as lady-in-waiting to the queen's cousin, who is being courted by Ivan the Terrible, in order to gather intelligence on the matter and help keep her estranged husband safe while he's in Russia. This is a spin-off from the author's previous historical mystery series, the Lady Appleton Mysteries, and there are some mentions of events from that series but it's still readable on it's own.

It had a good premise and was reasonable well written but there was too much about this that felt contrived and the character development wasn't great. It wasn't explained why Rosamond's husband would drop this studies and go to Russia. He didn't appear to be working for the Muscovy Company (a trading company) despite spending a lot of time at their headquarters. He didn't seem to be doing anything else there except trying to help an Englishwoman caught up in Ivan the Terrible's vengeance, which wasn't the reason he went to Russia, he just happened upon her while there and she begged for his help. He couldn't have decided to vacation there, since the book makes a point of how few English people were there, as it could be a dangerous place for them. So why was he there in the first place? Because there wouldn't have been a plot otherwise, clearly.

Had it not been for this, spying and mystery of the plot would have been enjoyable but I just kept thinking back to the fact that the only reason Rosamond was involved was because her husband was in Russia and he had no good reason for being there. I just couldn't get passed this.

Rosamond wasn't very likable, she came across as self-centered, spiteful, resentful, petty, self-important, and bitter at most everyone and everything. I think this was either a poor attempt at making her seem strong and independent, or perhaps the reason for it had something to do with the original series but if so, the author should have made it more clear. The idea of giving up her finery for the plainer clothes of an upper servant repulses Rosamond and she initially turns down the opportunity to actually do something worthwhile. For someone who wants so desperately to prove she's not a "brainless female", she doesn't exactly jump at the chance to make use of her knowledge and skills. And not because of the danger, but because it would mean making small, petty sacrifices in her lifestyle for a temporary period of time. She has an opportunity to potentially make a difference to political matters, something that would be unthinkable for most women of the times, even if it is in the background by providing intelligence, but she'd rather sit at home alone and attend plays. And then she gets offended when someone calls her frivolous? While she does eventually agree to participate, she gripes about it every step of the way. And she only agrees because she's told it will help keep her husband safe, which might seem selfless but the truth is, she's motivated mostly by guilt, not love. She only married him so she could kick him out and live independently. She used him and his love for her to get what she wanted and then she tossed him aside. Her only redeeming quality is that she acknowledges this and feels remorseful about it.

I understand that she is supposed to highly value her independence because it was so rare for women of the time but instead she just comes across as a selfish, spoiled little brat. I wanted to give this book a chance because maybe the character would grow and mature. Towards the end (about 3/4 into it), she does start to show signs that she is considering the fact that the attributes she prides herself on may not be seen so favorably by others. But it's too little, too late to totally save the book.

Review: The Marriage Game by Alison Weir

Advanced review copy from NetGalley, my opinions are my own.
US Release Date: February 10, 2015

In Weir's second biographical novel about Elizabeth I, it opens with Elizabeth attaining the crown and settling into her role as Queen Regnant. I admit I didn't read her first novel on Elizabeth's earlier life, but I am already familiar with Elizabeth's background and didn't feel like I needed to in order to read this sequel. I also admit this is my first novel by Weir, surprisingly. I don't know why it's taken me so long to give her fiction a go since I've read and enjoyed several of her non-fiction works.

It started of well, with Elizabeth exhilarated by the sudden freedom and security of being queen. But at times I felt like there was a lot more telling then showing. Weir's status as a biographer showed when sometimes the narrative slipped almost into a factual recital.

The story itself was also lacking. I realize the title makes it clear that it's primarily about all the prospective marriages Elizabeth considered or seemed to consider - and I realize that at the time, it was a very big issue. But that is literally what the novel is solely about. Will she marry Robert? Will she marry this foreign prince or that one? When we already know the answer, it's gets old fast. It could have easily been more multidimensional by adding other sub-plots, politics, and character development into the story but even when the issue wasn't of Elizabeth's marriage, it was about her cousin Mary's marriage! The constant cycling of Elizabeth's relationship with Robert, two characters who aren't even likable, got so repetitive that I was sick of it before I got even half way through.

There is so little going on in this book that it's a wonder it could fill a full length novel. And unless you love your main characters to be selfish, vain, spiteful, and resentful with little to no depth, I don't see how this novel can be enjoyable. I won't deny that the historical Elizabeth had many personality flaws, she also had many strengths that weren't used in the novel, making her character flat and unlikable. And if you're going to take a wholly negative approach on the main character, you need to compliment it with another, more likable character. Cecil could have filled this role but we don't get to see enough of him to save the story. While it is written in third person from multiple points of view, it still manages to be very one dimensional and entirely focused on Elizabeth and Robert.

About the last quarter of the novel finally eases up on the obsession of Elizabeth's marriage and her relationship with Robert but it's too little too late. What a shame that my first Weir novel had to be so disappointing. It seems like her novels, not unlike her biographies, can be a little hit and miss so I haven't ruled out trying some of her other novels.

Review: Queen's Gambit by Elizabeth Fremantle

Twice widowed Katherine Parr finds herself the unwilling object of Henry VIII's affections and is forced to marry him while her heart lies with playboy Thomas Seymour. Being queen has it's advantages but passionate Reformer Katherine must tread carefully in a court that is still half Catholic and will jump at the chance to see her become the third beheaded queen of Henry VIII.

As much as present tense narrative is still my unfavored form of story telling, it's refreshing to see an author making use of showing, rather than too much telling. For the most part, the characterization was well done, especially with Elizabeth and I would have liked to see more of her. But I did have trouble understanding how an intelligent and experienced woman like Katherine could fall for a douchebag like Thomas Seymour (it's really the only word to describe him). I am not just saying that because I had the benefit of knowing what Thomas would later do - in fact, in the beginning I wondered if the author would take a nontraditional approach and portray Seymour as a misunderstood victim of rumors. But he is just not a likable character and I couldn't understand why Katherine loved him. It even seems like Katherine herself couldn't understand it - behavior she admitted would otherwise by annoying, on him was "adorable". So although this is a good, quick read, it won't satisfy a thirst for real romance, at least not with Katherine. Katherine's trusted servant and friend Dot and her love interest William Savage will have to suffice.

One thing that puzzled me is why the narrative kept referring to Katherine's sister Anne as "Sister Anne". At first, I thought she was a nun but she is married with children. It's not like there were lots of other "Anne's" in the story that the author needed a way to distinguish her, though there was a few mentions of Anne Boleyn, it's not like she was a present character. It really should have been "her sister Anne" or "sister Anne". I still can't figure out why "sister" was being capitalized, as if it were a title.

Apart from these two complaints, it was an enjoyable read and I do think the author did well to make this an exciting and interesting story. Of all of Henry's wives, Katherine Parr's story may appear among the most uneventful on the surface but this novel is anything but uneventful. I appreciated the inclusion of some theology of the characters, since so many contemporary historical novels don't seem to truly understand how important the religious conflict was at the time. They may make mention of this person being Catholic and that person being Reformed but they don't seem to realistically include theological discussions and arguments being had.

So although I had a few issues to pick at, I was surprised to wind up enjoying this, considering I don't normally like present tense novels. If you're looking for one about Katherine Parr, this is a good option.

CW's Reign

Ad for 'Reign' showing the fictional
'Bash' character and inaccurately
portrayed Dauphin Francis.

I intended this to be a book review blog but after just watching the CW's pilot on Mary, Queen of Scots, I had a few things to say about it. It does contain a few spoilers, I've written it on the assumption of those reading this have already watched the first episode.

The show opens with a teenage Mary living in a convent in France and, after an assassination attempt, is sent to live at the French court, where she briefly had spent some time before when she'd first arrived in France as a child. This of course is inaccurate, the real Mary never lived in a convent, she grew up at the French court after arriving there at five years old. I could excuse this though, it made some sense to introduce the audience to the story at the same time that Mary was being reintroduced to the French court. It means that we learn things about the court as Mary learns them, which helps us empathize with her. Although she knows many of the people at court, she is learning about them as an adult and therefore, in a way, she is new to the court and still settling in. It's a good starting point, even if not true.

When Mary arrives at the French court, we discover that she is betrothed to the Dauphin of France, the heir to the throne, Francis. Understandably for a teen show, it centers on romantic intrigue when Francis is already involved with a random pretty girl at court, complicating his feelings for Mary, while Mary herself finds some emotional refuge with Francis' half brother, the king's bastard 'Bash' (short for Sebastian). Meanwhile, the romantic interest of one of Mary's ladies fills a sub-plot while another of her ladies gets involved with the king himself when he encounters her masturbating after covertly watching a princess of France lose her virginity on her wedding night. While it's true that the consummation of royal marriages often required witnesses, the idea that the maiden Queen of Scotland and her ladies could sneak a peek from behind a screen is pretty far-fetched. Even more far-fetched is the idea that one of them would masturbate in the middle of a stairwell. The scene was heavily edited down and is really only suggestive, you're left not entirely confident that's what she was doing because apparently, the show's producers felt that showing a young woman discovering and exploring her sexuality on her own is more controversial than a teenage girl having an affair with an grown, married man.

The real Francis and Mary

The other two major inaccuracies I spotted were the introduction of a fictional character, Bash, and the portrayal of Francis. I don't mind storytelling involving fictional characters, even some of the best historical fiction authors make use of them, such as Sharon Kay Penman and Bernard Cornwell. It allows the storyteller greater creative freedom and often creates additional sub-plots, giving the story a more complex and multi-dimensional feel. The danger zone of fictional characters in a historical story is when they get too involved with the main historical characters. If taken too far, it becomes unbelievable that a historical figure had quite so much involvement with someone who never existed, unless there is a good reason they never appeared in the history books despite being a pivotal player. We'll see if 'Reign' goes down that path or not but for now, I can understand why they've created a fictional bastard of the king and his mistress, Diane de Poitiers (historically, Diane had no children by the king, only two daughters who could not have been the king's since they were born around the same time he was). Not only does it involve Diane more in the family politics but Bash also serves as an alternate love interest for Mary, which I guess is practically a necessity when your target audience is teenage girls. In reality, though there's no speculation that Mary was ever involved with a king's bastard, for the sake of a good story, Mary would have been in a prime position to find love elsewhere than with her fiance, not because he was already sleeping with other women, or because he felt it politically unwise to marry her, as the show would have you believe. No, in reality the reason would have been much simpler, though admittedly also much less sexy, because the historical Francis was an underdeveloped, sickly little boy. Already a year younger than the developing and tall Mary, Francis' growth was stunted by his health problems and made the age difference between them seem even greater. Though by all accounts, Mary got along with and cared for Francis, it was probably more as a little brother than as a passionate lover. So it's not unreasonable that a fictional story would speculate on Mary finding love elsewhere, I just don't fully understand the need to make Francis a healthy, handsome, strapping young man when he was anything but. Apparently, everyone in this TV show must be attractive and I find it difficult to believe that today's young women are quite so vain that they couldn't appreciate a well portrayed, if unattractive, character. A beautiful young queen and a handsome forbidden bastard evidently isn't enough, pretty much the entire court must be good looking. Even Diane, who as a mistress of the king you might except to be beautiful, is played by an actress in her 30s when in reality she was 20 years the king's senior and approaching 60 by this point.

Scene showing some of the more inaccurate dresses

Appealing to modern young women brings me to my next complaint, the costumes. Apparently, the CW believe that today's teenagers won't be interested in anything even remotely resembling historically accurate costumes. Strapless dresses? Really? Need I say more?

Another romanticized element of this is how much time Mary conveniently gets to spend alone, which of course allows her to have private conversations with Francis and Bash. For the very reason that, in the show, Mary's reputation was nearly ruined when a young man is found in her bed, she equally would not be able to spend so much time wandering around on her own, running into handsome and dashing young men who, of course, fall hopelessly in love with her. In this way, it is more like a fairy tale than history.

While the show might appeal to many for purely entertainment purposes, it's unsurprisingly an epic fail on historical integrity. Still, I can still the appeal as a guilty-pleasure and I support any mainstream entertainment that encourages people, especially young people, to develop an interest in history. If this show gets young women wanting to learn more or picking up books, even novels, about Mary Stuart or French royalty, I hope it runs for a very long time. Perhaps, in that way, it will do for young people what The Tudors did for so many adults, a show that I admittedly loved and that partially sparked my own interest in royal history, despite it's own numerous inaccuracies. Sometimes, a story doesn't have to be historically accurate to be enjoyable and let's hope 'Reign' proves this to be true. I, for one, will continue to watch it if only to see Torrance Coombs' alarmingly beautiful blue eyes again. I never said I was above a bit of eye candy...