Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.78 AVERAGE
3.78 AVERAGE
Reading this made me fall in love with Philippa Gregory's writing all over again. She was the first author of the historical fiction genre I read and she'll always be my favourite. She writes with such elegance and grace, I feel she captures these figures perfectly.
This story chronicles Katherine Parr's forced marriage to King Henry VIII; and oh wow what an incredible woman she was - as well as lots of other noted people; all of which I can't wait to read about in my further historical fiction and non fiction ventures :)
This story chronicles Katherine Parr's forced marriage to King Henry VIII; and oh wow what an incredible woman she was - as well as lots of other noted people; all of which I can't wait to read about in my further historical fiction and non fiction ventures :)
I felt this book about Kateryn Parr was quite slow-paced, dragging out the point that she was terrified, but still devout and scholarly, throughout her queenship. I felt what most undermined the point of her being her own woman was the book ending at the death of Henry VIII, instead of spending time following her through the last year of her life, which included more writing and finally being with the man she loved.
informative
reflective
sad
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
I'll write this just to explain my rating. Philippa Gregory is renown among historical fiction writers so I have higher expectations of her. If she was a starting writer I would give her three stars for the effort. I did not care about Kateryn Parr and several chapters in, I found myself zoning out. The only person that appeared deeper was Henry VIII likely because he was half crazed and sick. I appreciated the glimpses of true history, the food they ate, the jewels they wore and the bits of political machinating, but all that seemed marginal. At the forefront were the boring sisters and their noble effort to translate the bible into the vernacular.
Fun read, but I love anything Tudor Court related. A look at Katherine Parr, the last wife of Henry VIII. Even though you know how history ended, Gregory still manages to create suspense and you just keep flipping pages until you're up in the early morning! A good historical fiction is tough to beat for a fun holiday read.
I did not know about this last queen of Henry VIII. It gave me a look into this king that I didn't know before as playing all the people against each other. No one was safe. Just when Katherine thought she could relax that all was fine rumors would pop up that she was siding too much with the Protestants and that henry was thinking of a new wife. I think the most revealing scene is when they unveil the portrait of the royal family and it is Queen Jane Seymour who is in the p0rtrait and not her.
I do love this author and want to read more by her.
I do love this author and want to read more by her.
This was an interesting read & so well researched (after studying Henry's wives at College I feel I can comment on this). I loved seeing things from Kathryn's perspective & reading about such a strong woman!
The only thing I struggled with was I thought it was a bit too long & could have been made a bit more consise as at times I struggled with staying engaged in reading it.
Rating ~ ⭐️⭐️⭐️.5/5
The only thing I struggled with was I thought it was a bit too long & could have been made a bit more consise as at times I struggled with staying engaged in reading it.
Rating ~ ⭐️⭐️⭐️.5/5
I have so many issues with this book but I don't have the patience to count them all. Let's start with some of the most basic:
1. Labeling Henry VIII a "serial killer" is wildly misleading. While he executed two of his wives, he had more than ample evidence that the second was undermining the stability of the kingdom. Henry was, like as not, infertile by the time he was with her and she was sleeping with Culpeper who could have easily impregnated her. While Boleyn's execution was a tragedy and based more on political scheming than actual evidence, this does not a serial killer make.
2. What is with the weird spanking/rapey scene? It was completely fictional, degrading, cheap and all around uncomfortable.
3. Okay, yeah, Henry wasn't a grand old guy. Nobody would have wanted to marry him in the last few years of his life, what with the possible brain damage and leg wound, but he was pretty decent ruler with a high level of intelligence. Making him a villain is one thing - and quite understandable - but this? It's disgusting.
4. Thomas Seymour, Catherine Parr's forbidden love, was a conniving jerk who had really sketchy relations with the 14-year-old princess Elizabeth and manipulated her brother, King Edward, until his untimely death.
5. The writing is lazy and just plain bad. Gregory seems more keen on writing popular books than good ones these days. Read Weir instead.
1. Labeling Henry VIII a "serial killer" is wildly misleading. While he executed two of his wives, he had more than ample evidence that the second was undermining the stability of the kingdom. Henry was, like as not, infertile by the time he was with her and she was sleeping with Culpeper who could have easily impregnated her. While Boleyn's execution was a tragedy and based more on political scheming than actual evidence, this does not a serial killer make.
2. What is with the weird spanking/rapey scene? It was completely fictional, degrading, cheap and all around uncomfortable.
3. Okay, yeah, Henry wasn't a grand old guy. Nobody would have wanted to marry him in the last few years of his life, what with the possible brain damage and leg wound, but he was pretty decent ruler with a high level of intelligence. Making him a villain is one thing - and quite understandable - but this? It's disgusting.
4. Thomas Seymour, Catherine Parr's forbidden love, was a conniving jerk who had really sketchy relations with the 14-year-old princess Elizabeth and manipulated her brother, King Edward, until his untimely death.
5. The writing is lazy and just plain bad. Gregory seems more keen on writing popular books than good ones these days. Read Weir instead.
I remember this as a largely good book (except for one scene I hate and don't believe for a second), but I'm going to put off rating it until I get farther.
One small glitch already:
Catherine says Nan referred to Anna la Marck in her letters as a "fat German duchess". Except there's no proof that Anna was fat (or ever that bad looking), and being the daughter of a duke and the sister of a duke does not (and has never) automatically made you a duchess.
The fact that everyone has always referred to Anna as coming from "the German duchy of Cleves" is also a little tricky. First, as far as I can tell, Germany wasn't technically independent back then—it had kings, yes, but it was a subsidiary of the Holy Roman Empire. (The man who held the title at the time of Anna's marriage was "Holy Roman Emperor, King of Germany, of Italy and of Spain, Archduke of Austria, Duke of Burgundy & Lord of the Netherlands".) Even if you want to approach it from a modern standpoint, the duchy encompassed both Germany and the Netherlands. Second, the full title is "Duke of Jülich-Cleves-Berg"—Anna's father was the one who united Cleves with the states of Jülich, Berg and Mark.
And finally, I don't know how the idea of a ruling duke being able to call their children princes and princesses got started, but I see it everywhere. Prince is a superior title to duke, and a royal title besides—how can a noble have a child that outranks him? Aliénor Ramnulfids was never called "Princess of Aquitaine" before she was raised to duchess...how could Anna be called a Princess of Cleves? Especially when Aquitaine was independent of France, but Cleves was ruled by the Holy Roman Emperor?
At least I can headcanon my way out of that one—when Henry named Anna his "honored sister", she was automatically made a Princess of England. Any references to her as a princess before the divorce are just errors.
[Wow, that ended up longer than I planned!]
=19 Jan=
Call this "half a nitpick". That is to say, "just because the character believes it, doesn't mean the author does."
Catherine says that Anna was raised Lutheran, but that's not true—her father was Lutheran and so was her brother, but Duchess Maria raised Anna and Amalia to be Catholic, like her. (Even more strict than Queen Catalina's upbringing in Spain!)
=22 Jan=
Bigger bugaboo!
Pippa writes that Thomas and Henry Howard (or the Duke of Norfolk and the Earl of Surrey, if you prefer) were sent to the Tower because they claimed they were descended from "Hereward the Wake", and that would put them above the king, which couldn't be tolerated.
A simple google tells you that Hereward was a rebel who worked against Williame de Normandie's bids to conquer England; therefore, any attempt to claim descent from him doesn't mean shit. To put a modern spin on it, that would be like me declaring I have a better right to the throne than Prince Charles, because I'm descended from one of Henry VIII's stepnieces!
(For the record, Henry VIII is my 5th cousin, 16 times removed; while he's the prince's 13th great uncle. Big difference!)
The real "sin against the throne" was just as Janet Wertman had it in her Somerset trilogy: the Howards had put the arms of Edward the Confessor (the last of the native kings of England) on their own. This was an offense only in the king's imagination, however, as Norfolk and Surrey were descendants of Thomas Plantagenet (Prince of England and Earl of Norfolk), son of Edward (I) Plantagenet and Marguerite Capet (King and Queen of England), and therefore perfectly entitled to royal arms.
(Again, unlike me, who is probably not even entitled to the Seymour arms, as the current duke and I are thirteenth-half-cousins-once-removed.)
But the number of people who died because of Henry VIII getting into a snit isn't small, so even when Pippa has the wrong reason down, it's still sort of right!
One small glitch already:
Catherine says Nan referred to Anna la Marck in her letters as a "fat German duchess". Except there's no proof that Anna was fat (or ever that bad looking), and being the daughter of a duke and the sister of a duke does not (and has never) automatically made you a duchess.
The fact that everyone has always referred to Anna as coming from "the German duchy of Cleves" is also a little tricky. First, as far as I can tell, Germany wasn't technically independent back then—it had kings, yes, but it was a subsidiary of the Holy Roman Empire. (The man who held the title at the time of Anna's marriage was "Holy Roman Emperor, King of Germany, of Italy and of Spain, Archduke of Austria, Duke of Burgundy & Lord of the Netherlands".) Even if you want to approach it from a modern standpoint, the duchy encompassed both Germany and the Netherlands. Second, the full title is "Duke of Jülich-Cleves-Berg"—Anna's father was the one who united Cleves with the states of Jülich, Berg and Mark.
And finally, I don't know how the idea of a ruling duke being able to call their children princes and princesses got started, but I see it everywhere. Prince is a superior title to duke, and a royal title besides—how can a noble have a child that outranks him? Aliénor Ramnulfids was never called "Princess of Aquitaine" before she was raised to duchess...how could Anna be called a Princess of Cleves? Especially when Aquitaine was independent of France, but Cleves was ruled by the Holy Roman Emperor?
At least I can headcanon my way out of that one—when Henry named Anna his "honored sister", she was automatically made a Princess of England. Any references to her as a princess before the divorce are just errors.
[Wow, that ended up longer than I planned!]
=19 Jan=
Call this "half a nitpick". That is to say, "just because the character believes it, doesn't mean the author does."
Catherine says that Anna was raised Lutheran, but that's not true—her father was Lutheran and so was her brother, but Duchess Maria raised Anna and Amalia to be Catholic, like her. (Even more strict than Queen Catalina's upbringing in Spain!)
=22 Jan=
Bigger bugaboo!
Pippa writes that Thomas and Henry Howard (or the Duke of Norfolk and the Earl of Surrey, if you prefer) were sent to the Tower because they claimed they were descended from "Hereward the Wake", and that would put them above the king, which couldn't be tolerated.
A simple google tells you that Hereward was a rebel who worked against Williame de Normandie's bids to conquer England; therefore, any attempt to claim descent from him doesn't mean shit. To put a modern spin on it, that would be like me declaring I have a better right to the throne than Prince Charles, because I'm descended from one of Henry VIII's stepnieces!
(For the record, Henry VIII is my 5th cousin, 16 times removed; while he's the prince's 13th great uncle. Big difference!)
The real "sin against the throne" was just as Janet Wertman had it in her Somerset trilogy: the Howards had put the arms of Edward the Confessor (the last of the native kings of England) on their own. This was an offense only in the king's imagination, however, as Norfolk and Surrey were descendants of Thomas Plantagenet (Prince of England and Earl of Norfolk), son of Edward (I) Plantagenet and Marguerite Capet (King and Queen of England), and therefore perfectly entitled to royal arms.
(Again, unlike me, who is probably not even entitled to the Seymour arms, as the current duke and I are thirteenth-half-cousins-once-removed.)
But the number of people who died because of Henry VIII getting into a snit isn't small, so even when Pippa has the wrong reason down, it's still sort of right!