Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.71 AVERAGE
3.71 AVERAGE
adventurous
challenging
dark
emotional
informative
mysterious
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Content Warnings
Moderate: Child death, Death
/
This was a fun easy romp through the War of the Roses period of history - not particularly insightful about the period of history but a fun read. I will preface this review by saying that I had already watched the TV show The White Queen so the plot was familiar in terms of the specifics and made me predisposed to like the book.
The TV show combines this book and [b:The Red Queen|7148256|The Red Queen (The Plantagenet and Tudor Novels, #3; Cousins War #2)|Philippa Gregory|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1281335912l/7148256._SX50_.jpg|7413156] which actually made it the stronger property. The book suffers from a lot of “I did this and then this happened. And then this happened. I was afraid but then I thought this …” In trying to cover Elizabeth Woodville’s entire reign there is a lack of focus sometimes - and frankly not a lot of interest in exploring her as a person.
Most of the characters feel like modern actors playing kings and queens - which is fine unless you expect any insight into a different political structure which emphasized the divine rights of kings and why the War of Roses was one of the most turbulent periods in English history.
The book is obviously more focused on getting to the next exciting part - the rebellions, the battles, the machination and less about what the reign meant to the people or even an exploration of the characters.
Some of the writing was repetitive and a little awkward. Despite the first person narrative focus on Elizabeth period the book switches to this third person view when the battles and the like are taking place. This was an odd choice for me - the author follows the armies when she wants to and sometimes stays in (first person) focus on Elizabeth at others. If we as readers can follow the King then why not always follow him?
I know Ms. Gregory did it to create mystery and intrigue but it felt like keeping the readers deliberately in the dark instead of internal consistency where we always follow Elizabeth and are therefore constrained by her knowledge. It’s a cheap trick if you think about it - open up the story / follow the men whenever you want to instead of it being a female focused tale as advertised.
Despite my gripes with the quality of the writing, I can see why this book made a good series - the writing is episodic where we can skip year and month in one page and then focus in detail on the ‘exciting bits’. It made for easy reading - I am not sure I truly understand Elizabeth or the period but it was fairly action focused read.
This is not an exploration of history but a costume soap opera. I like that but if you pick this up know what you are getting into.
And watch the TV show.
The TV show combines this book and [b:The Red Queen|7148256|The Red Queen (The Plantagenet and Tudor Novels, #3; Cousins War #2)|Philippa Gregory|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1281335912l/7148256._SX50_.jpg|7413156] which actually made it the stronger property. The book suffers from a lot of “I did this and then this happened. And then this happened. I was afraid but then I thought this …” In trying to cover Elizabeth Woodville’s entire reign there is a lack of focus sometimes - and frankly not a lot of interest in exploring her as a person.
Most of the characters feel like modern actors playing kings and queens - which is fine unless you expect any insight into a different political structure which emphasized the divine rights of kings and why the War of Roses was one of the most turbulent periods in English history.
The book is obviously more focused on getting to the next exciting part - the rebellions, the battles, the machination and less about what the reign meant to the people or even an exploration of the characters.
Some of the writing was repetitive and a little awkward. Despite the first person narrative focus on Elizabeth period the book switches to this third person view when the battles and the like are taking place. This was an odd choice for me - the author follows the armies when she wants to and sometimes stays in (first person) focus on Elizabeth at others. If we as readers can follow the King then why not always follow him?
I know Ms. Gregory did it to create mystery and intrigue but it felt like keeping the readers deliberately in the dark instead of internal consistency where we always follow Elizabeth and are therefore constrained by her knowledge. It’s a cheap trick if you think about it - open up the story / follow the men whenever you want to instead of it being a female focused tale as advertised.
Despite my gripes with the quality of the writing, I can see why this book made a good series - the writing is episodic where we can skip year and month in one page and then focus in detail on the ‘exciting bits’. It made for easy reading - I am not sure I truly understand Elizabeth or the period but it was fairly action focused read.
This is not an exploration of history but a costume soap opera. I like that but if you pick this up know what you are getting into.
And watch the TV show.
| Character | 4 – 1 or 2 characters aren’t terrible
| Atmosphere | 6 – Nothing special, a few cool things
| Writing | 4 – I had to reread stuff repeatedly
| Plot | 6 – I liked about half of the plot points
| Intrigue | 4 – I didn’t really want to pick it back up
| Logic | 8 – I totally understand this world
| Enjoyment | 4 – Eh, I’m done
challenging
dark
emotional
informative
fast-paced
emotional
informative
mysterious
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
A very interesting story, but since I saw the bbc miniseries in 2016 I can't help it but compare the two. The book is better at explaining the thought process of some characters, but I believe the series does it better.
dark
hopeful
informative
inspiring
medium-paced
At the start, this book reads like a historical Mills and Boon- breathlessly romantic – but the romantic hero, King Edward, is a rapist, a womaniser and a killer.
The women in this book are wives, witches or whores and, possibly, all three. Boy babies are celebrated. The beloved brother berates his sister as a whore and then becomes her greatest champion when she becomes queen. The loving husband moves his mistress in while his wife is giving birth. The uncle seduces his niece to secure his position on the throne.
Yet the women are not just victims. They want power too, not just over themselves but over others.
Everyone in this book is awful, but it really is a rollicking read.
The women in this book are wives, witches or whores and, possibly, all three. Boy babies are celebrated. The beloved brother berates his sister as a whore and then becomes her greatest champion when she becomes queen. The loving husband moves his mistress in while his wife is giving birth. The uncle seduces his niece to secure his position on the throne.
Yet the women are not just victims. They want power too, not just over themselves but over others.
Everyone in this book is awful, but it really is a rollicking read.
I had a history trash craving, so turned to Gregory. In that respect, I wasn't dissapointed. Perhaps I'm biased as after the Other Boleyn Girl I cannot take her seriously as an accurate historical author, merely an author who uses historical characters to play out a fairytale.
There is no subtlety in this novel, and ideas are repeated so often it becomes patronising. I personally did not need to be reminded countless times of her supernatural ancestry, but as a protaganist, Elizabeth insists on mentioning it every other page.
The casual approach to her witchcraft also seemed a little unrealistic, considering the fear surrounding the subject at the time. The emphasis on her witchcraft also cheapens the entire period: from her existance as queen to the entire war. Battles are won through her magic, kings are won through her magic, factions are destroyed through her magic, not through cunning, manipulation, court politics or anything of the other factors that were actually in play during the period.
These parts of the novels provided me with minor annoyances that I could live with, however the portrayal of Richard III seemed ridiculous. Her main argument in favour of his innocence regarding the two princes is entirely contradictory. The idea that he had nothing to gain from the death of the princes makes little sense. There were uprisings throughout the kingdom whilst the princes lived, the death was supposedly a reaction to one such uprising. History had also already proven, a usurper is never safe on his throne until the usurped has been disposed of, as had been demonstrated previously with Richard II and Henry VI. I understand that there are arguments defending Richard III, but this felt like a pretty damn weak one :/
Despite all this, I'll still probably go ahead and read the Red Queen
There is no subtlety in this novel, and ideas are repeated so often it becomes patronising. I personally did not need to be reminded countless times of her supernatural ancestry, but as a protaganist, Elizabeth insists on mentioning it every other page.
The casual approach to her witchcraft also seemed a little unrealistic, considering the fear surrounding the subject at the time. The emphasis on her witchcraft also cheapens the entire period: from her existance as queen to the entire war. Battles are won through her magic, kings are won through her magic, factions are destroyed through her magic, not through cunning, manipulation, court politics or anything of the other factors that were actually in play during the period.
These parts of the novels provided me with minor annoyances that I could live with, however the portrayal of Richard III seemed ridiculous. Her main argument in favour of his innocence regarding the two princes is entirely contradictory. The idea that he had nothing to gain from the death of the princes makes little sense. There were uprisings throughout the kingdom whilst the princes lived, the death was supposedly a reaction to one such uprising. History had also already proven, a usurper is never safe on his throne until the usurped has been disposed of, as had been demonstrated previously with Richard II and Henry VI. I understand that there are arguments defending Richard III, but this felt like a pretty damn weak one :/
Despite all this, I'll still probably go ahead and read the Red Queen
‘The White Queen’ is a great stomping historical drama. It is Philippa Gregory back to her best as she exposes the political machinations and sexual family intrigues of King Edward and his courtiers.
Gregory does not always get it right: ‘The Other Boleyn Girl’ was fantastic as it stormed its way through the court of Henry VIII and exposed the manipulative family of Anne Boleyn in all its decadence and incestuous possibilities. However, by the time Gregory had trudged her way to the arrival of Anne of Cleves in ‘The Queen’s Fool’ she had run out of saucy material and although she tried to invent more intriguing female characters to cover for the fact that Cleves was essentially rather dull and couldn’t even communicate with dear old corpulent Henry, it didn’t work and I had run out of patience and so gave up with The Tudor Court series.
‘The White Queen’ sees Gregory returning to form as, in Elizabeth Woodville, she has discovered yet another engaging female character through which to channel her vivid historically chronicling.
Before I really begin my review, I should like to point out one caveat that has been a great source of annoyance. I originally read ‘The White Queen’ because the series was coming out of the BBC in the UK and I have a pathological aversion to watching anything based on a work of literature that I have yet to read. I thus duly prevented my husband from watching any of the series until I had completed the novel. Duly done, we avidly begun the lavish BBC adaptation, which although clearly using a significant element of poetic licence, particular in terms of the sections it has chosen to cut, was a very effective and fairly elaborate adaptation. That is until about episode 3 when I began to realise that things were happening in the BBC version that had not been dealt with at all by the novel. ‘Well this is odd’ though I (possibly after a glass of wine or two). Then, during the credits, I noticed that it was stated that the 10 part series, although entitled ‘The White Queen’ was actually based on ‘The White Queen’, and the next three in the series – ‘The Red Queen’, ‘The Lady of the Rivers’ and ‘The Kingmaker’s Daughter’. Well, for all those of a remotely literary dispensation, you can imagine my horror (and fury)! Of course, I have now banned my husband from watching any further episodes, which remain recorded on Sky plus and I will now have to read the remaining books in the series before I continue with my viewing – Gregory, these had better be good and not go the same way as ‘The Tudor Court’!
Anyway, rant over, back to the book. Having been disappointed by Scarrow’s attempt at the historical, Gregory thoroughly compensated. What Gregory does best is to infuse fictional ideas with the historical – her work is carefully researched and she seems able to capture a vivid sense of the horrors of the battlefield and the extravagance of court life in London. However, as clichéd as it may sound, what I do enjoy about Gregory’s writing is her use of the female perspective. This is a world in which marriages are thrust upon women who are used as part commodity and part breeding machine. Whilst history is so often dominated by male protagonists and particularly this period (the vivid characters of Richard III and the Earl of Warwick loom large over this era and are undoubtedly great historical fodder – the world watched for hours whilst a supermarket car park was dug up for the possibility of discovering Richard’s bones!- Asda had never been so busy!), the women are equally fascinating as Gregory repeatedly proves in this novel.
This is a woman, (without revealing the plot or the terrible fate of her sons), who not only managed to become Queen of England despite her family backing the wrong side in the great War of the Roses and despite being married before and having had two children to her first husband, but a woman who supposedly married for love and was then able, with her family of seemingly little influence or affluence (her mother married a mere knight for love, for which the couple were fined and rejected from court), to influence our entire history and even usurp the great Warwick in influence. What a woman! Her story is undoubtedly worth telling and Gregory tells it very well leading us from her early days as a mere country window to her rise to power and journey through Edward’s turbulent reign.
Having said this, I am not proclaiming that this novel is a great masterpiece. I did have a few issues, (I’m a fussy reader after all). As many have commented, I was not entirely convinced by the magical elements in the novel. Gregory claims that Woodville’s family were partly descended from Melusina, a Burgundy river goddess and from the start of the novel Elizabeth and her mother Jacquetta perform magical rituals in order to secure the king’s love, thwart their enemies and assume power. This was not entirely fitting with the realistic elements of the text. Moreover, it seemed to play into the stereotypical view of women as whores and witches, which was at odds with Gregory’s purpose in providing her female protagonist’s with a voice. Yes, Elizabeth was accused of witchcraft as was her mother. However, in an age of political intrigue and destruction when brother was literally prepared to kill brother to assume control of the throne, this really was mere accusation most of the time – an easy way to ensure the eradication of a female enemy and I struggle to believe that anyone as practical as Elizabeth Woodville would indulge in such rituals. It felt an unnecessary and distracting element of the novel that was thrown in purely to sensationalise.
Equally, I have to say that this is not real history. It is a jolly good romp with a lot of imaginary detail included for excitement and titillation. It is a super holiday read and in terms of narrative has a sense of pace and drive that is impressive – it covers nearly twenty years of destructive English monarchical turbulence and in that sense does have an epic quality. Is this great literature? Probably not. Is this a thoroughly enjoyable romp through a fascinating period of English history? Yes, yes it is!
Gregory does not always get it right: ‘The Other Boleyn Girl’ was fantastic as it stormed its way through the court of Henry VIII and exposed the manipulative family of Anne Boleyn in all its decadence and incestuous possibilities. However, by the time Gregory had trudged her way to the arrival of Anne of Cleves in ‘The Queen’s Fool’ she had run out of saucy material and although she tried to invent more intriguing female characters to cover for the fact that Cleves was essentially rather dull and couldn’t even communicate with dear old corpulent Henry, it didn’t work and I had run out of patience and so gave up with The Tudor Court series.
‘The White Queen’ sees Gregory returning to form as, in Elizabeth Woodville, she has discovered yet another engaging female character through which to channel her vivid historically chronicling.
Before I really begin my review, I should like to point out one caveat that has been a great source of annoyance. I originally read ‘The White Queen’ because the series was coming out of the BBC in the UK and I have a pathological aversion to watching anything based on a work of literature that I have yet to read. I thus duly prevented my husband from watching any of the series until I had completed the novel. Duly done, we avidly begun the lavish BBC adaptation, which although clearly using a significant element of poetic licence, particular in terms of the sections it has chosen to cut, was a very effective and fairly elaborate adaptation. That is until about episode 3 when I began to realise that things were happening in the BBC version that had not been dealt with at all by the novel. ‘Well this is odd’ though I (possibly after a glass of wine or two). Then, during the credits, I noticed that it was stated that the 10 part series, although entitled ‘The White Queen’ was actually based on ‘The White Queen’, and the next three in the series – ‘The Red Queen’, ‘The Lady of the Rivers’ and ‘The Kingmaker’s Daughter’. Well, for all those of a remotely literary dispensation, you can imagine my horror (and fury)! Of course, I have now banned my husband from watching any further episodes, which remain recorded on Sky plus and I will now have to read the remaining books in the series before I continue with my viewing – Gregory, these had better be good and not go the same way as ‘The Tudor Court’!
Anyway, rant over, back to the book. Having been disappointed by Scarrow’s attempt at the historical, Gregory thoroughly compensated. What Gregory does best is to infuse fictional ideas with the historical – her work is carefully researched and she seems able to capture a vivid sense of the horrors of the battlefield and the extravagance of court life in London. However, as clichéd as it may sound, what I do enjoy about Gregory’s writing is her use of the female perspective. This is a world in which marriages are thrust upon women who are used as part commodity and part breeding machine. Whilst history is so often dominated by male protagonists and particularly this period (the vivid characters of Richard III and the Earl of Warwick loom large over this era and are undoubtedly great historical fodder – the world watched for hours whilst a supermarket car park was dug up for the possibility of discovering Richard’s bones!- Asda had never been so busy!), the women are equally fascinating as Gregory repeatedly proves in this novel.
This is a woman, (without revealing the plot or the terrible fate of her sons), who not only managed to become Queen of England despite her family backing the wrong side in the great War of the Roses and despite being married before and having had two children to her first husband, but a woman who supposedly married for love and was then able, with her family of seemingly little influence or affluence (her mother married a mere knight for love, for which the couple were fined and rejected from court), to influence our entire history and even usurp the great Warwick in influence. What a woman! Her story is undoubtedly worth telling and Gregory tells it very well leading us from her early days as a mere country window to her rise to power and journey through Edward’s turbulent reign.
Having said this, I am not proclaiming that this novel is a great masterpiece. I did have a few issues, (I’m a fussy reader after all). As many have commented, I was not entirely convinced by the magical elements in the novel. Gregory claims that Woodville’s family were partly descended from Melusina, a Burgundy river goddess and from the start of the novel Elizabeth and her mother Jacquetta perform magical rituals in order to secure the king’s love, thwart their enemies and assume power. This was not entirely fitting with the realistic elements of the text. Moreover, it seemed to play into the stereotypical view of women as whores and witches, which was at odds with Gregory’s purpose in providing her female protagonist’s with a voice. Yes, Elizabeth was accused of witchcraft as was her mother. However, in an age of political intrigue and destruction when brother was literally prepared to kill brother to assume control of the throne, this really was mere accusation most of the time – an easy way to ensure the eradication of a female enemy and I struggle to believe that anyone as practical as Elizabeth Woodville would indulge in such rituals. It felt an unnecessary and distracting element of the novel that was thrown in purely to sensationalise.
Equally, I have to say that this is not real history. It is a jolly good romp with a lot of imaginary detail included for excitement and titillation. It is a super holiday read and in terms of narrative has a sense of pace and drive that is impressive – it covers nearly twenty years of destructive English monarchical turbulence and in that sense does have an epic quality. Is this great literature? Probably not. Is this a thoroughly enjoyable romp through a fascinating period of English history? Yes, yes it is!