You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.87 AVERAGE
3.87 AVERAGE
Too little of Eleanor and too much of jer husbands and sons.
This book was just alright for me. There isn't much history to go off of when it comes to Eleanor of Aquitaine. A lot of the books detail is about the men in her life with a sentence here and there saying it wasn't know where she was at the time or telling where she was assumed to be. It was interesting reading about the different rumors about her life and learning which ones were likely to be true. Other than that I can't say I learned much about Eleanor herself.
Well paced, well researched and very interesting. Weir uses a variety of sources to fill gaps in the life of Eleanor and present her many sides: ruler, administrator, mother, wife. The book was an easy read and showed just how important Eleanor was to the creation and maintenance of the Angevin empire and the rule of her husbands, sons, and others.
I love Alison weirs work and was drawn to this book after first encountering eleanor in the historical fiction book the greatest knight by Elizabeth Chadwick. She is a fascinating character and although some parts of this book are a little dry I think it is because so little is known about her. Looking forward to reading the captive queen now!
Having seen the play The Lion In Winter in London last January, I really wanted to know more about Eleanor because I found her such a fascinating character. It is a shame that so very little of her is known today, and that a big part of the book is mainly a background story to illustrate the world that she lived in. Nevertheless, considering how little she had to go on, I think Alison Weir did an excellent job portraying Eleanor's life the best she could. It was a bit dry to get through at times, but then again most history books are, but it proved an absolutely fascinating read. After finishing it I really felt I knew so much more about Eleanor and the beginning of the Plantagenet line than I did before. I would recommend this to anyone who loves history and doesn't need to have a story romanticised in order to enjoy it.
I felt that this book was more about the men in her life than about Eleanor herself. This isn’t necessarily the author’s fault; there’s not a lot of documentation about Eleanor from the time period because she’s a woman in the Middle Ages. I do wish the book had more information about her, but I understand that’s not the fault of the author; she gave as much as she could, given the circumstances.
Alison Weir’s writing style is one of my favorites, and makes reading biographies enjoyable and interesting. I look forward to future books.
Alison Weir’s writing style is one of my favorites, and makes reading biographies enjoyable and interesting. I look forward to future books.
informative
slow-paced
I listened to this book on cd on my long drive cross country. If I hadn't been so bored in the car for 52 hours I wouldn't have listened to it after the second chapter. In fact, I arrived before it was complete and didn't bother to finish. I don't know how you can take an adventurous and breathtaking historical biography and turn it into a novel that drags for pages on end. No wait, this book did that very effectively. Even the sex scenes seemed purposefully placed to break up the monotony and thus became completely unsurprising after a while.
I loved innocent traitor but it seemed much shorter and was much better done.
I loved innocent traitor but it seemed much shorter and was much better done.
informative
slow-paced
When I'm working on the collection in my library, certain books always catch my eye. Someday, I'll grab that one and take it home, I tell myself. Maybe when I'll retire, I'll request a comfy chair be established for me to sit in for 2-3 years, catching up on all those books I always thought I might like to read someday.
This biography of Eleanor of Aquitaine was long on that list. I didn't know anything about her beyond "A Lion in Winter," which seems to be more about Katherine Hepburn than Eleanor of Aquitaine (though I'll watch it again now), and that she was some sort of badass medieval queen.
Halfway through this book, I heard the living ghost of Nancy Pearl demanding to know why I was still reading it. So far, it seemed, Eleanor had done the usual queen stuff with a little dash of scandal. She managed her own lands independently and well, married, bore children, married her first husband's enemy, bore more children, and followed her husband around, trying to maintain control of their territory.
And then. Then. Then she turned 46.
Now, I myself am 46, and see the attraction in blowing up the whole goddamned world in that year. She became her husband's most dangerous enemy, siding with her sons against him in a war that posed such a threat to him that he kept her imprisoned for 11 years thereafter.
That? That was interesting! She must have spent a lot of time thinking, because emerged from her imprisonment a master of forging alliances, manipulating enemies, in creating strategic peace, and threats of war. From then until her death at 82, she remained a major force in the political, marital, and military complications of 12th century France and England.
Things that surprised me in this book:
*It spoiled Robin Hood. Remember how the people longed for the return of Good King Richard the Lionhearted? And chafed under the outrages of Bad King John? They were both her sons, and they were both wretched human beings (whom she loved very much). And if Robin Hood is in any way rooted in fact, he lived in the 14th, not the 12th century.
*While I knew that children, and even babies, were betrothed for political purposes, I didn't know that they were sometimes actually married in church. Little tiny children saying "I do!" The Church disapproved, but local bishops found compelling reasons to obey the local lords over the distant Pope.
*Primogeniture, though misogynistic and unjust to anyone but the eldest son (and not all that safe for him), was a great benefit when it was implemented. It provided an orderly chain of succession, sparing peasants who had no dog in these fights the ravages of war every time a king died or went away for a long time. Sort of like how we will one day look back on Obamacare: a barbarous system that was a dramatic improvement from the chaos before it, but not nearly as good as the sane, fair system which is certainly coming at some point, and, we hope, not in centuries.
*Given all the drama when Henry VIII wanted to divorce his first wife, I thought it was unusual for kings to divorce. These 12th century kings traded wives (with annulment rather than divorce) with shocking regularity--for barrenness, of course, but also for consanguinity, something they'd presumably have known all about before getting married. The marital pool for royalty being so small, this lead to complications.
*I don't watch "Game of Thrones," but I kept thinking of the title while reading this. Boundaries, loyalties, and formal allegiances changed constantly. Truces and treaties might not dry before they were violated. Girls and women were married and traded to shift or cement these alliances. It really was a long game, but one everyone was destined to lose in a world before primogeniture, when any gains you made died with you, unless one of your heirs could defend them. One flaw of the book is that the people who suffered through this instability and died of it, landless peasants, are hardly referred to at all. Because they left no records, their anguish can only be inferred.
*I was amazed at how much of this story Weir was able to document from primary sources. Certainly most people lived and died and left no trace, but then, a monk would write a letter describing what he saw at the Queen's visit, and a voice rises up from the past to speak. Weir provides documents for many of her assertions, and attempts to rescue Eleanor's reputation from sources who disparaged her decades and centuries after she died.
*If a frenetic person in a TARDIS asks you where you'd like to go, don't pick 12th century England or France. Rough place. Unless you can land it inside the castle where Queen Eleanor is prisoner and charm her into speaking with you. Then, it might be worth it.
This biography of Eleanor of Aquitaine was long on that list. I didn't know anything about her beyond "A Lion in Winter," which seems to be more about Katherine Hepburn than Eleanor of Aquitaine (though I'll watch it again now), and that she was some sort of badass medieval queen.
Halfway through this book, I heard the living ghost of Nancy Pearl demanding to know why I was still reading it. So far, it seemed, Eleanor had done the usual queen stuff with a little dash of scandal. She managed her own lands independently and well, married, bore children, married her first husband's enemy, bore more children, and followed her husband around, trying to maintain control of their territory.
And then. Then. Then she turned 46.
Now, I myself am 46, and see the attraction in blowing up the whole goddamned world in that year. She became her husband's most dangerous enemy, siding with her sons against him in a war that posed such a threat to him that he kept her imprisoned for 11 years thereafter.
That? That was interesting! She must have spent a lot of time thinking, because emerged from her imprisonment a master of forging alliances, manipulating enemies, in creating strategic peace, and threats of war. From then until her death at 82, she remained a major force in the political, marital, and military complications of 12th century France and England.
Things that surprised me in this book:
*It spoiled Robin Hood. Remember how the people longed for the return of Good King Richard the Lionhearted? And chafed under the outrages of Bad King John? They were both her sons, and they were both wretched human beings (whom she loved very much). And if Robin Hood is in any way rooted in fact, he lived in the 14th, not the 12th century.
*While I knew that children, and even babies, were betrothed for political purposes, I didn't know that they were sometimes actually married in church. Little tiny children saying "I do!" The Church disapproved, but local bishops found compelling reasons to obey the local lords over the distant Pope.
*Primogeniture, though misogynistic and unjust to anyone but the eldest son (and not all that safe for him), was a great benefit when it was implemented. It provided an orderly chain of succession, sparing peasants who had no dog in these fights the ravages of war every time a king died or went away for a long time. Sort of like how we will one day look back on Obamacare: a barbarous system that was a dramatic improvement from the chaos before it, but not nearly as good as the sane, fair system which is certainly coming at some point, and, we hope, not in centuries.
*Given all the drama when Henry VIII wanted to divorce his first wife, I thought it was unusual for kings to divorce. These 12th century kings traded wives (with annulment rather than divorce) with shocking regularity--for barrenness, of course, but also for consanguinity, something they'd presumably have known all about before getting married. The marital pool for royalty being so small, this lead to complications.
*I don't watch "Game of Thrones," but I kept thinking of the title while reading this. Boundaries, loyalties, and formal allegiances changed constantly. Truces and treaties might not dry before they were violated. Girls and women were married and traded to shift or cement these alliances. It really was a long game, but one everyone was destined to lose in a world before primogeniture, when any gains you made died with you, unless one of your heirs could defend them. One flaw of the book is that the people who suffered through this instability and died of it, landless peasants, are hardly referred to at all. Because they left no records, their anguish can only be inferred.
*I was amazed at how much of this story Weir was able to document from primary sources. Certainly most people lived and died and left no trace, but then, a monk would write a letter describing what he saw at the Queen's visit, and a voice rises up from the past to speak. Weir provides documents for many of her assertions, and attempts to rescue Eleanor's reputation from sources who disparaged her decades and centuries after she died.
*If a frenetic person in a TARDIS asks you where you'd like to go, don't pick 12th century England or France. Rough place. Unless you can land it inside the castle where Queen Eleanor is prisoner and charm her into speaking with you. Then, it might be worth it.