#it isnt even interestingly bad a la queens gambit

[period-dramallama]

Tudor Queen, Tudor Crown: a review

Yeah I'm not bothering to finish this book. Life is short and my to read list is long.

Let's begin with the book itself. It's bad. It has been through spellcheck, but the editor was either lazy or non existent. As a result, there are sentences that do not make sense. Here's some examples- all from the first 40 pages:

"Set a dangerous precedence"

"Ridiculing her to high dungeon"

"The King was loathed to send her back to Spain" [because he wanted her dowry]

"Gracious largess"

"The draft filled hall" (to be fair I think that one depends on whether you're American or not)

"The damp castle was all but inhabitable"

"They had their heads loped off".

As to the history.... the author's background seems to be in mythological retellings. Not necessarily a bad approach. However, she does not have an eye for detail. She confuses the Poles and the de la Poles- they were two different families. She says it was Mary's uncle, not her cousin, who was Holy Roman Emperor. Her dating also means Anne was born in 1508 or 1509- I don't know of any historian who thinks she was born after 1507. She calls Katherine of Valois "Katherine Valois." If she had bothered to Google Katherine, this could have been corrected.

Speaking of Katherine of Valois, she says Owen Tudor "cuckolded his sovereign by tumbling his wife". I'm fairly confident that Katherine and Owen didn't get together until after Henry V was dead.

This is literally on page one of the book. Granted, it may be one of the ways the author is 'retelling' but still. Page one. And Owen is not the only historical man to get unfairly treated in this book.

The author seems either to exaggerate the facts, or misunderstand their significance. Exhibit A: Henry "invested one boy after another giving them titles and lands recognising them as his." However many illegitimate sons Henry had, he did not do this. He did it with just one son- Henry Fitzroy.

When it comes to Anne's execution, the author has this to say: "For Anne Boleyn was no Katherine of Aragon. The Dowager Princess' dignity was so great and her character was so pious, no one would have ever credited such a charge. Anne Boleyn's repute however was entirely different."

Leaving aside the fact many people-who didn't even like Anne- didn't believe the charges... does the author think it is a coincidence that Henry's princess wives got annulments while his commoner wives got either executed or threatened with execution? Of course Katherine of Aragon wasn't arrested or beheaded, there would be consequences abroad for that. Charles V could only put up with so much.

The novel also implies at one point that Henry has soldiers murder Katherine of Aragon... but what about the autopsy? If Katherine met a violent death, why would the autopsy talk about the ominous condition of her heart and ignore literal stab wounds? Why?

Now on to the retelling... I saw there would be a chapter from Elizabeth's POV in 1548 and I thought to myself "oh god she's going to have a torrid passionate affair with seymour isn't she".

And I was right.

Much original much retelling very unpredictable wooooow so groundbreaking never seen that before

Basically Elizabeth is swept off her feet by seymour because he's so hawt and she has never felt lust before and I know exactly what the author is doing. She's trying to spin it as Elizabeth being Empowered and Taking Charge of Her Sexuality. Babe. You can't Hades/Persephone a real life case of child abuse. And the distinction between shipping twisted ships and shipping Elizabeth/Seymour is the same as the distinction between thirsting after fictional villains and thirsting after Manson/Bundy/Dylan Roof etc. Why not make OCs if you want this story so badly? Who knows you might even end up with a story that's...original....

The author stated at the end of the book that she wanted to write Mary as not being in love with Philip. It would be interesting to have Mary and Philip have a more nuanced and strained relationship than simply 'Mary loves Philip, Philip doesn't love Mary."

(There's a double standard in these kinds of novels where Seymour lusting after teenage Elizabeth makes him the sexy bad boy but if Philip lusts after adult Elizabeth then he's a terrible husband betraying his poor wife. Go figure.)

That's not what we get though. What we get is Mary and Philip consummating their marriage with no foreplay and with Philip not caring about Mary's physical pain while it happens. Cheap, lazy, unimaginative.

As to the quality of the story... not nearly enough dialogue. There's so little dialogue that the dialogue is in italics, no different than thoughts. Why write a story if you never let characters talk to each other on the page? I don't want the story summarised for me dammit I want to see and hear it happen!