Category Archives: Review

2023 in Review

I started 2023 with a number of goals in mind. I wanted to publish a book, and revise my writing process to be more efficient. Then, I wanted to do more events. And I wanted to cross some media off my various lists.

Writing and Publishing

I accomplished a lot of writing goals this year. First, I got one draft out to Beta Readers, with a second close behind. Then, I wrote scenes for various projects, and did research and world building for others.

And while I was doing all this, I was revising my writing process. I need to write more efficiently, and by the end of the year I was. I’m planning some blog posts on the topic, but essentially I paid attention to everything that slowed me down when writing, and worked out a process to counter it before it becomes a problem.

Events

I only got two events in this year, but they were good events. One convention where I sold books, made contacts, and partook in a panel. And one pop-up bookstore.

I’ve already signed up for another convention next year, and I want to do more. I know pricing is an issue, but I’m going to have to figure something out. It’s too important to not pursue.

Media

One trade off of writing more is experiencing less. I watched fewer movies and TV shows, and played threw fewer games, than I expected to. I still read a decent amount. And now that I’m listening to podcasts, I can get some research and entertainment done while I’m working. So, while the quantity may be down, I don’t regret it.

2024

My goals for 2024 are similar to this year. Publish and get my writing out there. Do more events. And continue to enjoy the stories that are out there to experience.

So, thank you to everyone who reads this blog and supports me. It was a good year, and I look forward to next year being even better.

Cheers!

Michael

Book Report: The Queen’s Fool

The Queen’s Fool is Book 12 of Philippa Gregory’s historical fiction series. Set between 1548 and 1558, the book follows Hannah Green, a fool in the service of the Royal Court. A unique character for several reasons, Hannah is has interactions with all three children of Henry VIII, and is present for the religious and political upheavals that follow Henry’s death. Her interactions are particularly interesting when it comes to Henry’s daughters, Mary and Elizabeth.

What I want to talk about in this post is not so much the structure and story of the book, but the three women we follow through it. Hannah, as the POV character, and then the sisters Mary and Elizabeth. With the sisters, I particularly want to discuss how their portrayal was much different than what I expected.

But first, a quick synopsis.

Synopsis

Hannah Green is a Jewish woman of Spanish descent, hiding in London with her widower father. She has a supernatural power called the Sight, a divination that allows her to tell the future of individuals or events. Hannah cannot control when it occurs, nor can she lie about what she sees.

After an event in front of a nobleman, Hannah is taken to court as a holy fool, an entertainer of sorts. While in this guise, Hannah becomes involved in the court politics, spying first on Mary Tudor, then on her sister Elizabeth. Her allies also use her Sight, attempting to foresee and influence events to their advantage.

Hannah develops relationships with Mary and Elizabeth, becoming friendly with both, though devoted to Mary. She is present with Mary for the event surrounding the rebellion of Jane Grey, Mary’s victory and subsequent coronation.

With Mary now crowned Queen of England, Hannah is eager for the future. But that future quickly sours. Mary is devoutly Catholic, and England is now largely Protestant. The religious differences drive a wedge between Mary and her people. It also causes a rift between Mary and Elizabeth, as Elizabeth is the protestant claimant to the throne and a natural opponent to Mary.

Queen Mary’s reign descends into that of Bloody Mary, with the return of the Catholic Church and the Spanish Inquisition. When an accusation of heresy threatens Hannah’s safety, she joins her family in Calais, the last English stronghold on the continent. The fall of that city later forces the last confrontation between Hannah and the two sisters.

Who is Hannah Green?

Hannah Green (born Hannah Verde) is an entirely fictional character. She is, as stated above, Spanish born, of Jewish faith (though she hides it), and possesses and intermittent divination she refers to as ‘the Sight’. She spends much of the book employed as the Queen’s Fool, (an entertainer at court) and as a spy. As a character, she has a unique point of view to watch the reign of Mary dissolve into a mess.

First, being Jewish. This is important because Hannah’s experience at hiding her faith allows her to easily adapt to whatever religion is in ascendency at the time. As a character, she can act as a Protestant or a Catholic as the situation dictates. This lets Hannah be part of an increasingly Catholic court, while fearing the rise that follows.

Second, being Spanish. Being a foreigner in the English court gives Hannah an excuse to be discounted from the normal family feuding of the court. She isn’t part of a family with a history to answer for, so she is free to make her own connections. It also means that when King Phillip and the Inquistion come to England, she views their arrival with different eyes than the Catholic Mary. She knows what they bring.

Third, Hannah’s progressive feminist attitudes. Hannah is not interested in being feminine, either in a common or noble sense. She doesn’t wear dresses or gowns and knows little about how to work in a kitchen or garden. She knows about selling and trading books, about playing a court fool, and about the politics of court. As such, she has a belief that women are capable of much more than what they’re generally believed capable of.

The first two points allow Hannah to be present in the story without getting caught up in the tides of it. They let the Hannah be the reader’s eyes. The third point is about Hannah’s concept of a queen, which I’ll get into with the two sisters in a moment here.

Queen Mary

Portrait of Queen Mary I of England by Anthonis Mor, 1554

Queen Mary is the eldest daughter of King Henry VIII and his first wife, Katherine of Aragon. She is a devout Catholic, like her mother. She becomes queen in 1553 and rules for several years. Due to her attempts to reintroduce Catholicism, and the violence that introduction incurs, she is often known as Bloody Mary. That’s what I knew her as before starting this book.

Hannah’s view on Mary is one of love and compassion. This is a woman who has spent her life prepared to die for her beliefs. She is strong and capable, and wants to be a good queen. But her reign is marred by tragedies that are, ultimately, her own fault.

The Tragedy of Wisdom

The first tragedy of Mary is that for all her suffering, she has gained no wisdom.

Mary suffered during the reign of her father, Henry VIII. Only the conviction of her faith carried her through many humiliations and embarrassments, until such time as she could take the throne. That conviction was admirable when she was the victim.

But that conviction carries Mary from the new queen to the bloody one. Being a Catholic Queen, Mary sees it as her responsibility to bring England back to the church. But she’s now ruling a strong protestant nation, that resists the reunion as much as elements of the nation resisted the separation a generation earlier.

If I hadn’t known how the history would end, I would have hoped that Mary would have learned not to push the issue of religion. Or to wield the power of her station with more grace than she does. Hannah sees Mary want to display that wisdom, when she looks for reasons not to execute Jane Gray and her sister. But ultimately, Mary refuses to be any more graceful with her power than her predecessors were.

The Tragedy of Strength

The second tragedy of Mary is that for all her ability, she is firm in her belief that as a woman, she shouldn’t wield it.

No sooner is she crowned queen than Mary beings to wonder about a king. Part of this is no surprise: Mary needs to have children, and that requires a consort. But as Mary points out, once she has a king, he becomes the King of England as well, and her superior as her husband. And while she indicates she isn’t entirely happy about that, she never questions that’s how it must be.

Hannah does question it. She sees Mary’s strength and ability. She understands the need for an heir, but not why Mary must automatically become less of a leader to her country because she marries. Her own personal journey influences this journey as much as anything else. She questions why any woman – Hannah or Mary – must be subservient. But while Hannah refuses to accept that role, Mary embraces it.

Part of the tragedy is that we’re aware of how her sister, Elizabeth, managed to be a Queen without a King. Mary, at least as Hannah sees her, has the strength and ability to be a queen without a king, but she refuses to see it.

The Tragedy of Connection

Finally, there is the tragedy that Mary, having lost her loving family as a child, never builds one as an adult.

Mary does eventually find a king: Philip II of Spain. But while Mary comes to the marriage as a willing wife, Philip sees the marriage as a political act. He brings her none of the warmth she believes a husband should, and she becomes more depressed by that absence as he campaigns on the continent.

The couple do try for children, which results in two false pregnancies. Mary is particularly devastated by these failures, which she sees as punishment for leading a protestant nation. Not only does Mary respond with excessive prayer, but it leads to increased persecution of her population.

Finally, the one family member Mary is left with, Elizabeth, draws further away from her. Elizabeth is a protestant, and in this book is a constant member of the schemes against Mary. Mary wants Elizabeth to join her faith, and to marry her off as one does with princesses. But Elizabeth refuses to comply, and for all their past affection, the two are now rivals. Especially as Elizabeth, as the next in line and a Protestant, is a threat to everything Mary is trying to fix.

Princess Elizabeth

Mary may see Elizabeth as a threat to what she’s trying to fix, but for most of the nation, Elizabeth is the next step in the separation Henry VIII and Edward VI were enforcing.

Elizabeth as a Teenager, by William Scrots, c 1546

Princess Elizabeth is the second daughter of King Henry VIII by his second wife, Anne Boleyn. She is a Protestant, following the faith of her father and most of England. in the book she is constantly scheming against her sister, plotting for the throne and then feigning innocence when the plots fall apart. For a queen I’ve only ever seen in a positive light, a negative portrayal was quite a surprise.

Hannah sees Elizabeth as a very promiscuous and devious princess. She is constantly flirting with the men of the court, even King Philip after his marriage to Mary. She is plotting and scheming to raise rebellion against Mary. But never does she suffer any serious consequences. Elizabeth is able to bluff her way out of execution, remaining in exile from the court for most of the book.

Yet, it’s important to remember that this is how Elizabeth survives. Where Mary passively endured, Elizabeth actively plots. *

Conclusion

This post is about the three women of The Queen’s Fool: Hannah Green, Queen Mary, and Princess Elizabeth. There are many things from the book I didn’t cover. There’s a whole plot with Hannah and her father and betrothed, musings on what it means to be Jewish in Christian Europe, and Hannah’s developing concept of romantic love.

The Queen’s Fool brought a unique POV character and two new twists on historical characters I already knew. The use of a third-party character to experience the era was a great choice on the part of the author. And the Sight was a fun mechanic to experience. All in all, a fun book to read.

Only three more books in the series. How exciting.

Last of Us: Video Game to Screen

I’ve always been fascinated by how stories change when they shift mediums. Usually, I watch books I’ve read come to screen. But with The Last of Us, there’s a chance to see how a great video game story can become a great show. I’ve worked through both the game and the show recently, and I wanted to write down some thoughts I had. Simply put, The Last of Us is a good example of how a studio can take a game and turn it into a show.

The Last of Us Poster

If you don’t know anything about The Last of Us, a quick synopsis. Humanity has fallen prey to a fungal infection inspired that leaves people in a state similar to zombies. Society fell apart, leaving the survivors to fend to themselves or gather in small towns and enclaves in the ruins of cities. Two characters — a middle-ages man name Joel and a teenage girl named Ellie — have to make their way west from Boston. They fight against infected, and other people, to reach their goals.

There are three topics I’m going to cover. First, the story of the game and why it needed to change for the show. Second, the world building opportunities that changing mediums provides and what the show does with it. And third, I’m going to look at the attitudes towards violence in both game and show.

Now I’m going to do those three topics without spoilers. Then I’m going to do a fourth, spoiler section where I discuss a few things without worrying about spoilers. Feel free to skip that section.

One: Changing the Story

The common story of The Last of Us is the story of Joel and Ellie and their journey west from Boston across a land of fallen cities, fungus-fueled zombies, and factions of survivors. The game and the show tell the same story, but do so differently.

There are many reasons to change the story. For starters, there’s the obvious issue of time. The video game takes 15 hours to beat the story only, and 22 hours to play everything. Of that, roughly 90 minutes are cut-scenes instead of playing time. Add an additional few hours for the DLC. The show runs about eight and a half hours.

Doing a direct cut-scene to show translation would be too short. Doing the entire game to show would be too long. The writers had to consolidate and modify the story-line to make it fit.

Slightly less obvious is the idea that doing a replay of the game exactly is boring. Yes, the creators should hit the high points of the game. They should include the scenes that the fans enjoyed and remember with fondness. But this is a chance to add to the story, not just re-tell it on camera.

I like most of the differences in the story the show does (beyond the World Building and Violence that I’ll discuss later). One big change is they streamline the story, consolidating several events into one scene to save on time and exposition. A second change is to modify the context around an event, so its impact on the story is the same but the specifics of how and why are different. The game and the show tell the same story, but each in a unique way.

Did you notice I said I liked “most” of the differences? Yeah, there were some things they did that I wasn’t happy with. One or two key scenes that they changed in such a way that they didn’t have the same impact as their game counterparts. Not enough to seriously hamper my enjoyment, but enough that I took note. But hey, nothing’s perfect.

Pedro Pascal and Bella Ramsey from The Last of Us. Photo: Liane Hentscher/HBO

Two: World Building

World Building means expanding the setting beyond what we know from the game. If the Story has Joel and Ellie leaving Boston, World Building is telling us more about Boston. This is an area where the show’s creators can take as much or as little from the game as they want, or need to, in order to tell their story.

The video game has two different extremes with world building. One on end is the world built by playing the bare minimum of the game, with everything every player will experience. The other end includes every found artifact, hard to reach vantage point, and unique conversation the player can possibly uncover, usually through great time and effort. The player must experience the one, but has to work to uncover the other.

Shows have the one world every viewer will see. This has its tradeoffs. The world is built more tightly to the narrative, but the excess details are lost. Like the story section, the show has the chance to build a slightly different world, if not outright contradictory. They need to support the story they’re telling, and if that means clashing with the game world, so be it.

The World Building can be further divided into three section: history, locations and specific characters.

History

The history part we can get through pretty quick. The show spends more time exploring the world before the game. There several scenes that take place before the pandemic that are completely new. They provide a context for the pandemic that the game doesn’t, something a viewing audience would expect.

Locations

It’s hard to describe how the show builds the locations different from the game without describing the people, so I want to point out here that this section will make references to the populations and factions of cities. This is meant to be separate from the individual, named characters I’ll get to in a moment.

The Last of Us uses the same sequence of eight locations as the game. The one big change is that the fourth location changes from Pittsburgh to Kansas City, but fulfills the same narrative role in the story.

For The Last of Us, the show makes an effort to humanize and give depth to the locations. The black-helmeted soldiers of Boston are no longer generic neo-fascist villains; now we see several of their faces, and see them reacting to the trials and fears of the world. We feel some sympathy for them and their role in their society. This change makes more sense when you consider that they are no longer some of the first opponents you fight and kill (see Violence, below). But it doesn’t contradict the game.

The Kansas City/Pittsburgh exchange is the biggest opportunity to expand on the world: the writers need to fill several story points, but otherwise have free reign to build a new location. They do so really well. The Kansas City location fills the same story development niches Pittsburgh does, but the opposing faction Joel and Ellie contend with is not a one-dimensional villain. We get why they’re doing what they’re doing, even as we hope they fail.

The other locations don’t differ too much from their game counter parts. We learn more about them, and appreciate them, but their impact on the story doesn’t change.

Named Characters

The last aspect of world building I wanted to discuss are changes to named characters. This is where the show greatly changes from the game. They need to do this to fit their story and the differing expectations of a viewing audience.

Every named character is different than their game counterpart. Some changes are small and don’t contradict the game, adding depth to even simple characters. Take the character of Maria. in the game, we know nothing about her other than her relationship to other characters and her position of leadership. in the show, we learn more about who she was before everything fell apart. We don’t know if game Maria is the same or not, and it doesn’t really matter.

Some of the characters are drastically different. Their biographies, and how they influence the show’s story, are big departures. Now, I’m not a purist. I don’t expect everything to be exactly the same. So when this happens, I ask myself, what were they trying to do? Do the changes they make work within the context of the new story?

I say yes. I say that the two biggest character departures absolutely make sense. Neither character would have worked if they’d been brought over exactly as they were from the game. Both stories would have been heavily influenced by the different expectations of violence, and one’s context was completely changed by differences in the story. This is what I’m going to talk a lot about in the spoiler section below.

Image from the official trailer for The Last of Us by HBO

Three: Differences in Violence

The last topic I want to go over is the way the two mediums use violence to tell their story.

The video game uses violence as a way to engage the player. It’s a challenge that must be overcome, either through stealth, guile or straight up combat. It is so common that the game only managed to make it intense by limiting your resources, forcing you to count bullets and manufacture traps, otherwise you’ll run out of ammunition and be forced to fight hand to hand.

The show uses violence much more sparingly. One online count I found put Joel’s kill count at over 200 in the game, but less than 40 in the show. It makes sense that the show would have a more realistic portrayal of violence than the game would. If they’d tried to mimic Joe’s kill count, it would feel like an 80’s action film, or at least a parody of one.

As a result, death in the show is much more impactful. Take the first time we see Joel kill someone in the show. The scene has a companion scene in the game. But in the game, he’s killed a few dozen infected and Boston guards by that point, and the death is just one more. In the show, it’s his first kill, and the context of the kill makes it all the more impactful.

The change in violence increases the lethality of the world. The infected are all the more dangerous for how few of them Joel and Ellie kill. The ease with which some factions kill is more jarring. It feels more real than the game does, and the characters react accordingly.

Spoilers

This section I want to discuss two things that require the spoilers tag.

Spoiler

Welcome to the spoiler section. The two topics I want to discuss here are the Bill and Frank story, and the Sam and Henry arc.

First, Bill and Frank. I loved this story-line. The characters were so much better than their game counterparts. But the big question I had was: why do things differently at all? The obvious answer is that Bill’s chapter in the game was one long combat sequence, something the show was not doing. so they had to do something different.

Slightly less obvious is that they needed a catalyst for Joel to decide to take Ellie further. Marlene had tasked him and Tess to take Ellie to the capital building; Tess’s last wish was for him to take Ellie to Bill and Frank’s. Bill’s letter, and the comment about finding someone to protect, gave Joel the impetus to take her all the way to Wyoming. The game didn’t really have a counter part; it just railroaded Joel into doing it.

FYI: Probably my only big complaint of this show comes from the Bill and Frank episode. Bill is a survivalist by nature. When raiders finally come, he stands in the middle of the road with a rifle while Frank is running around wildly. That makes no sense. Bill would have a plan that involves a safe place for Frank, and a nice firing position to defend the perimeter.

Now, Sam and Henry. Tying Sam and Henry’s background to the Kansas City rebellion was great. It gave the Kansas City faction a reason to keep coming after them, one that made sense. But the point I wanted to bring up had to do with violence.

in the game, Henry kills a number of infected and Pittsburgh hunters to protect Sam, and eventually Ellie. It’s just part of living in that world. But the show makes a point of him not being violent. He’s never killed anyone, and he doesn’t until Sam turns at the end of the episode.

The game is heartbreaking enough, fighting through Pittsburgh with him for several hours and then losing them. in the show, it’s worse. The only person Henry ever kills is his brother. It’s heartbreaking.

[collapse]

So ends the spoiler section.

Conclusion

Obviously, a lot of thoughts about this show and game. I think it is a fantastic example of translating a video game story to screen. The writers consolidate and rework the story to fit the new medium. They expand the world to meet the expectations of their audience. And they consider the influence of violence on the story and treat it well.

I recommend the show to anyone who can handle the violence and intensity of it. I also recommend the game, to anyone who enjoys games and has the time to sit down and play.

Thank you for reading through this post with me. Let me know what you think below, especially if you’ve experienced one or both of these examples of The Last of Us.

Book Report: The Taming of the Queen

“I have seen too many queens,” [WIll Sommers] says. “And too many of them are ghosts now. I don’t want to see a queen in danger; I don’t want to see another ghost. indeed, I swear that I won’t see one. Not even one.”

“You did not see me?” I ask, catching his meaning.

“I did not see you, nor Kitty Howard creeping down the stairs in her nightgown, nor Anne of Cleves, pretty as her portrait, crying at her bedroom door. I am a Fool, not a guard. I don’t have to see things, and I am forbidden to understand them. there’s no point in me reporting them. Who would listen to a Fool?”

-Will Somers, Court Fool, to Queen Kateryn Parr, after discovering her eavesdropping on Henry’s private discussions, The Taming of the Queen, page 194.

Kateryn Parr wants to survive. In the court of King Henry VIII, that means bowing to his shifting whims, even for his wives. Chosen by Henry to be his sixth queen, Kateryn is determined to avoid the fates of her five predecessors. She adopts several defensive strategies to placate and mollify Henry. But as the ominous title of the book suggests, in Henry’s court, survival requires submission.

In The Taming of the Queen, the eleventh historical fiction novel in Phillipa Gregory’s series, we follow Queen Kateryn from Henry’s first proposal in the spring of 1543 to his death in the winter of 1547. The book is not about her ascension to power or her scheming and plotting for the throne. The book is about her survival.

Synopsis

Kateryn is a reluctant queen. She has watched five predecessors come and go; two of them set aside, two of them executed, one neglected and died in childbirth. She has a secret lover that she hopes to wed. In short, she does not want to be queen. But Henry chose her, and queen she will be.

Queen Kateryn lives in apartments that other queens have lived in. She wears dresses and jewels commissioned by her predecessors, and her ladies have served several of them as well. Half of the court sees her as an impediment to their agenda; others see her as an avenue to riches and power.

Her biggest threat, however, is not another family or the next aspiring queen; it is Henry himself. Henry has been absolute ruler of England for decades, and has become quite adept at removing queens. He plays the factions of his court against each other, and not even Kateryn is safe from his tests and games.

To protect herself, Kateryn works to be the best queen she can be.She used her power and position to hire tutors. and teachers. She reconciles Henry with his children, bringing them together as a family for the first time in Henry’s reign. Kateryn even goes so far as to publish books in support of Henry’s reformation, the first woman to publish in her own name in English history. All in the hopes of keeping her position long enough to survive the king.

The Threat – Henry the Tyrant

King Henry VIII has been a threat to the characters for four books. He has executed four of the last eight POV characters and deposed two more. The absolute power he developed over previous novels is now perfected: he is the Divine King of England. He has long removed anyone who could — or would — argue with him.

But in Taming of the Queen, the threat is much more intimate. In previous books, Henry was a threat, but not a very present character. His will was known to the reader through correspondence, conversation with other characters, and the appearance of his officials to execute his orders. In Kateryn’s story, Henry is more present and more forceful. He actively debates with Kateryn, giving the readers a chance to see Henry’s mindset and trains of thought.

Henry is also old. His age and infirmities are taking their toll. He is aware that he is no longer a young man or the ‘handsomest Prince in Christendom.’ Death is coming, and Henry has but one male heir to the throne. Knowing this, Henry is scared, and that fear manifests itself in his whims and moods.

This is the tyrant Kateryn must placate to stay alive. A king, close to death, who is fearful of the future and lashing out with the power he has. A very dangerous foe indeed.

The Queen’s Defensive strategies

Kateryn Parr becomes queen with the goal to survive. To do so, she is dependent on Henry’s good graces. Kateryn sets to work immediately, learning from her predecessor’s successes and mistakes. Some of it is easy and obvious: don’t take a lover, as Kitty Howard did. Most of it is difficult, requiring constant application of intelligence and influence.

Kateryn never sits down and plans out her campaign for the reader to see. The campaign starts from page one, and Kateryn develops her defenses over time. The actions Kateryn takes in her defense can be grouped into three categories, based on what she is providing Henry. First, she is providing intimacy. Second, she is providing family. And third, she is providing religious advocacy.

Providing Intimacy

Kateryn Parr is no fool. She understands that the primary reason Henry has chosen her is because she is an attractive young woman who can bear children. Providing intimacy is the first strategy she is forced to employ.

Sex is the first and easiest intimacy Kateryn provides. Henry is used to getting his desires met, and he is still worried about having only one male heir to the Tudor line. But Henry is also old, and his health is failing. He is morbidly obese, to the point of needing pages and wheelchairs to move about. An open leg wound fills the room with the smell of decay. And Henry faces some level of impotency. Kateryn has to ignore all of that, and play the young, virginal bride for her husband.

Kateryn’s act must extend beyond the bedroom. Henry is her third husband, but Henry must be the best at everything. Luckily for Kateryn, Henry asks guiding questions. Kateryn is smart enough to answer the correct way, and placate Henry’s ego.

Of the three strategies Kateryn pursues, this thread is the most disturbing to read through. Henry is not a considerate lover, and the submission he expects is demeaning. Kateryn’s descriptions of their bedroom atmosphere are oppressive.

Providing Family

The second avenue Kateryn uses is as new mother to the three existing children from three previous queens. Mary (Catherine of Aragon) is almost the same age as Kateryn, while Elizabeth (Anne Boleyn) and Edward (Jane Seymour) are much younger. Henry has declared the two daughters illegitimate, and barely sees his son.

Kateryn makes an effort to bring them all together, to provide Henry with the family he never realized he had. If she can make him realize he has potential heirs already, perhaps he would calm down.

Kateryn is largely successful at this. She befriends Mary, brings Elizabeth back to court, and corresponds with Edward. Henry appreciates this effort, and revises the articles of succession to include the two daughters (after Edward, of course).

Of the three strategies, this one is the most rewarding to read. Mary and Elizabeth are innocents, declared illegitimate because of Henry’s falling out with their mothers, and largely disregarded because of their gender. Kateryn bringing them back together, and mending the family that Henry was at best oblivious to, is the best success she has. The submission for family is humiliating, but ultimately is not as terrible as some of the other things Kateryn must endure.

“The Family of Henry VIII”, Artist Unknown, c1545. Royal Collection Trust

Religious Advocacy

The third and most dangerous avenue Kateryn pursues is the be part of Henry’s reformation. Kateryn is a dedicated Protestant, and her family pressures her to keep the king committed to the reformation. Henry has begun the reformation, but has not completed the process. He shifts from protestant to catholic leanings, based on internal court debates, the shifting alliances of Europe, or just his own whims and desires.

Kateryn uses her position as queen to educate herself. She learns languages, studies the Bible and religious texts. She invites learned scholars and popular speakers to lecture to her and her ladies on reformation topics. All this she does within the bounds of the Church of England, with Henry at its head, using his teachings and writings.

But Henry’s inconsistency can trap Kateryn as easily as anyone else. Henry rules that religious texts should be in English, so everyone can read them. Then he rules that only learned men should read them, as they’re too difficult for everyone to have an opinion on. Kateryn’s works that Henry praises one day he condemns her for the next.

Of the three strategies, this one is the most aggravating to read. Kateryn works hard, and yet her work is contently dismissed for reasons far beyond her control. The submission for this strategy is not one event. It is a constant stream of little abuses that Kateryn endures. Hence, aggrivation.

Conclusion

The Taming of the Queen is a hard book to read. Kateryn Parr is a likable, intelligent woman who spends the book simply trying to survive. She works hard to please Henry, only to find he’s more interested in her submission than her hard work. She is a character who constantly receiving my sympathy and respect.

On the plus side, with the death of Henry VIII, we can finally move on and into the next generation of Tudor leaders. I’m sure the next few books will be about easier times and perfect rulers.

Right?

Book Report: The Boleyn Inheritance

Book 10 of 15 in Philippa Gregory’s series is The Boleyn Inheritance. The inheritance is a reference to the impact of Anne Boleyn’s brief tenure as Queen on those who followed her, though this does take on different connotations depending on the character. The book begins in July of 1539, which means we have skipped ahead a few years from The Other Boleyn Girl, past Henry’s marriage to Jane Seymour in 1536 and her death in 1537.

The book is a first for the series in that it has three different view point characters, switching between the three each chapter. They are (in order of appearance):

  • Jane Boleyn, wife of George Boleyn and sister-in-law of Queen Anne Boleyn. One of the witnesses against her husband and sister-in-law, she begins the book in exile from the currently queen-less court. She is waiting for a chance to return.
  • Anne of Cleves, a young noble woman from a German duchy. She is in the running for the next queen of England. Her portrait, from the master Hanz Holbein, will entice Henry. Henry will make her queen, and bring an alliance to her brother.
  • Katherine Howard, a 14-year-old excitable teenage and cousin to Anne Boleyn and, by marriage, of Jane Boleyn. Katherine is living in a house of many young women, with little supervision and many gentlemen callers. Despite being 14, she is already an experienced lover, and has the Howard desire for social climbing.

Jane Boleyn, Lady Rochford

‘My mother commanded me to trust nobody at court. She said, especially Lady Rochford.’

-Catherine Carey, daughter of Mary Boleyn

Jane Boleyn is an experienced hand at Henry’s court, having participated in three previous queens. Her actions against Anne Boleyn and her husband haunt her, yet she longs to return to court. Her Boleyn inheritance is the literal wealth she kept after her husband’s execution.

Jane Boleyn comes off as a very sympathetic character when reading her scenes. She is constantly telling herself, and the reader, how much she regrets her actions with Anne and George, and how much she missed both of them. You can’t help but feel sorry for her. At least, until you read other character’s scenes.

Jane may speak of guilt, but her actions show none of it. She joins Anne’s court to spy for the Howard family, with Katherine as a confederate. When Anne falls from favor, Jane makes a token effort to refuse to participate in the scheming against her, but eventually falls in line. In Katherine’s court, Jane continued her service to the Howard family, participating in Kitty Howard’s affairs without much thought, knowing what the penalty will be when they are caught.

When Jane falls from grace, it’s hard to find much sympathy for her. She had many chances to defy her uncle, or to guide Anne and Katherine better, but chose to follow the family line, even as she stresses her regrets over and over to the reader. Only once does Jane do something noble: at the height of the danger to Anne, Jane provides wise counsel that Anne accepts, and survives.

Jane is a character who talks about guilt but makes no effort to avoid repeating her offensive acts. While I did not despise the character, I do think her end at the block was well deserved. Which might be a first for this series.

Anne of Cleves

‘If it were not so tragic, this would be the highest of comedies: this gawky girl stepping into the diamond-heeled shoes to Anne Boleyn. What can they have been thinking of when they imagined she could ever rise to it?’

-Jane Boleyn

Anne of Cleves begins the book excited to come to England, to escape a smothering religious family in Germany and finally exercise some agency in her life. She is aware that there are problems in the way; she and her entourage stand out in their dull dress ‘fat little ducks besides these English swans’, and she does not know the language, but she is committed. Her Boleyn Inheritance is a poisoned throne.

Anne is an immediately sympathetic character, due to the puritanical family life she leaves in Germany. Her approach in England and the throne is one of a scared woman who is eager to prove she can do the job, sort of like Katherine of Aragon only without the confidence. I read her scenes happy to watch her try, and eager to see her succeed.

Anne also brings an outsider’s perspective to the English court. Unlike every other character, who knows what Henry’s court is like and what to expect, Anne has to learn. Her presence, and her actions, put Henry and his nobility to shame. Also, because Anne is not from an English family, Anne is not immediately part of the court schemes.

Of the three arcs, Anne’s was my favorite, not only because she critiques the court with her presence, but because she gets a happy ending. From the oppressive German family to the dangers of Henry’s court, Anne finally ends up with estates and a stipend, and freedom. She ends up happy.

The only thing I wish we could have seen: Anne writing a letter to her brother, telling him off. Oh, well.

Katherine ‘Kitty’ Howard

‘She is a foolish, frivolous little thing, but she has the cleverness of a stupid girl, since, like any stupid girl, she thinks about only one thing, and so she has become very expert in that. And the one thing that she thinks about? All the time, every moment of every day, Kitty Howard thinks about Kitty Howard.

-Anne of Cleves

Katherine Howard is a vain, greedy teenager who grew up always wanting more: more lovers, more wealth, more stuff. She is brought to the court to act as another agent of the Howard’s. When she becomes queen, it is only because she is young and pretty. Her Boleyn Inheritance is the family’s insatiable need for more.

Katherine’s scenes are written from a very unique viewpoint for this series: they’re shallow. Her descriptions of characters are always about their dress. She loves parties and frivolity. Many of her chapters start with ‘Now let me see, what do I have,’ followed by a list of what she currently owns, the length of which charts her rise and fall. Compared to the educated and measured viewpoints of pretty much every other character in 10 books, it might be the most unique voice so far.

Katherine’s rise is entire due to her beauty, and her willingness to be a trophy queen to show off Henry’s virility. She’s pretty, and she knows it, and she uses it. Her downfall is because she is never happy. She demands so much she irritates the king, and bemoans marriage to a man old enough to be her grandfather.

I’m mixed on Katherine’s story. On one hand, she had a unique view point, and being a young woman who goes through what she does incurs some sympathy. On the other hand, she’s well aware of the dangers of King henry’s court yet makes no effort to learn any lessons. Thus, Katherine walks to the same end as her cousin.

Conclusion

The Boleyn Inheritance was fun to read. Three characters, with different backgrounds influencing their actions. Three stories, ending in wildly divergent and deserved endings. And three inheritances of Anne Boleyn’s trek to the throne.

I’d put this book above average. While we never get too intimate with any of the three characters, their contrasts help sharpen each individual’s arc. It helps that the viewpoints are diverse, so each one stands wholly separate from the other. It makes for an exciting read.

With this, we enter the last third of the series, one step closer to the end of Henry VIII and the rise of Queen Elizabeth. After so many kings, it’ll be good to see a queen.

-Michael

Movie Review: The Other Boleyn Girl

DVD Cover, link to IMDB Page

I watched The Other Boleyn Girl, a film adaptation of Philipa Gregory’s novel that I finished and reviewed not too long ago. I was interested to see how this would go. Growing up my parents would often make me read the book before taking me to see a movie, so I have come to appreciate the difficulties in taking a story from print to film. It can be difficult, but not impossible.

First, I’ll state the obvious: the movie is incredibly simple compared to the book. This is one of the problems of transitioning mediums. Books allow a writer to give exposition far greater than a movie allows. The movie acknowledges this by making big changes to the relationships between the characters, particularly the three principals: King Henry and the Boleyn sisters. Simply put, the movie over-simplifies the events and provides only the main points, and provides no details or background.

Note: I am going to discuss the differences between the book and the movie. Historical notes and changes can be checked on the IMDB page (click the movie poster above).

The Family Plotters

The first big change of the story is that of the family itself. The Boleyn family of the movie is not a family of schemers and plotters. Mary and Anne have a rivalry, but it is sisterly to start with. It is only when their Uncle arrives to include them in his plotting that their interactions with Henry begin.

Everyone is different. The mother is more affectionate, showing concern for both her daughters. The father is less assertive, more deferential to his brother-in-law. Mary becomes more innocent, though not completely blameless. Anne is the only character of the family I thought was diminished. Anne of the book is calculating and cunning. In the movie, she’s shrewd, but it’s never explained how, so she just comes across as extremely manipulative.

I did notice an obvious goof of the movie. The movie starts with Mary Boleyn’s marriage to William Carey. William is present for the Uncle’s decision to put Mary in Henry’s view, and a few subsequent scenes. He is obviously unhappy with the plot but goes along with it. And then he disappears. The movie never mentions that he dies of sickness. William Carey just ceases to be.

The Boleyn Siblings

The movie makes great changes to the relationships of the three Boleyn siblings. In short, their relationships become extremely shallow. The brother, George, is all but removed from the story, which makes sense as there’s not a lot of time to spend on his plot.

While Mary is still a co-conspirator, her increased innocence means she appears much more the victim of circumstance. Removed are her manipulations of Henry on behalf of Anne, and the scenes where she supports Anne when Anne is exhausted or needs advice are largely absent. Her character growth and rebellion against Anne – and therefor her survival of the fall of her family – is completely gone.

Anne’s maliciousness is missing scenes where she delights in torturing Mary, such as taking Mary and Henry’s son away from her, or refusing to reward Mary as she does the rest of the family. Indeed, for much of the second half of the movie, she ignores Mary to focus on Henry. Another sacrifice of switching mediums.

I found this most disappointing. Most of the book is about their relationship, their mutual support and rivalry. Without all the extra scenes of their bickering and scheming, their depth is gone. And without the depth, all the events of the movie seem sudden.

King Henry VIII

Henry VIII is a fairly one-dimensional character in both movie and book. He is a King of England who needs a male heir to secure his throne. If his queen cannot give him one, he will find a way. That’s all he needs to be, for either story.

Henry’s relationship with both sisters is also shallower than the book’s. He never develops much of a relationship with Mary, and they have one child together, not two. His turn to Anne is sudden, a result of her manipulations and not the family’s.

Henry’s movement away from the church and Katherine of Aragon is overly simplified, which isn’t a surprise. One of the things that I’ve learned from reading the series is how long of a process the separation was. To explain it in the film would take more time than they had, So, again, we see the entire process reduced to a few scenes. Henry wants a son. Anne wants to be queen. Katherine is in the way. Schism.

While the oversimplification of Henry and his quest isn’t a surprise, neither is it a strike. Henry’s part in this story is always simple. He’s the prize for both sisters, with the power to make – and break – their lives.

Conclusion

The book is better than the movie. Not exactly a risky stance to take, I know. But it’s important to understand how switching mediums change the basics of the characters.

Mary is no longer a naive character who grows into an independent woman, she is a victim of her circumstances. Anne is no longer a cunning strategist in a game of court politics, she is a manipulative opportunist. The events of their lives, devoid of any depth, become a sequence of rapid actions, observed without understanding anything but the immediate, personal consequences.

Was it a terrible transition of book to screen? No. There are definitely worse ones. And it did follow the basic themes of the book, while ignoring the nuances that a novel allows. That’s about all you can hope for when taking a book to screen. All in all, not a bad movie, but not one I feel the need to see again.

Book Report: The Other Boleyn Girl

The Other Boleyn Girl is a book about Mary Boleyn, sister of Anne Boleyn and mistress of King Henry VIII. The story begins in Spring of 1521 and ends in May of 1536 with the execution of Anne after her brief stint as Queen. This is the first book from the perspective of the Boleyn sisters; so far they’ve only been referenced as villains in other women’s stories. The sisters, Mary much more so than Anne, come across in a sympathetic light.

When the story begins, Katheryn of Aragon is still queen and is failing to produce a male heir. Henry already has one illegitimate son he has acknowledged and is looking to sire more. The Howard family – of which the Boleyn’s are a branch – seeks to put Mary in his view to gain influence. Anne is with her to support her in her quest. Both sisters are in service to the queen, while trying to seduce her husband.

Mary Boleyn

Mary Boleyn ranks high on the list of sympathetic characters in Gregory’s pantheon so far, perhaps at the top. She is a very passive character, much like Anne Neville and Margaret Pole, never attaining much authority or power for herself. Her family treats her like a pawn in their game of power around the king with no empathy or care for her. In one scene, when Mary expresses a desire to return to their family lands to be with her child, her mother wonders why she would do so, declaring she had never shown such affection for her own children. As the reader, I’m not surprised.

What little support she has comes from her two siblings, George and Anne. George offers sympathy enough to keep her moving with the family’s plots, but never enough to protect Mary from them. Anne offers advice to win the attention of the king, proving to be a fairly sage advisor. Yet the three never forget they are plotters for the Howard family, and that knowledge colors their entire relationship.

I found myself hating the position Mary was in, while hoping she would find enough strength to pull herself out of it. She is commanded to betray her first husband to seduce the king. She is forced to betray the queen – a woman she has tremendous respect for – to bear the children the queen cannot. What’s worse is what happens when she’s ultimately successful and bears Henry two illegitimate children. Her family benefits from her success, and Anne becomes the focus of Henry’s attention, while Mary is cast aside by both king and family without a second thought by either. She becomes the other Boleyn girl.

Anne Boleyn

This is the first book in which Anne Boleyn is a major character. Through Mary’s eyes, she sometimes provokes sympathy, and other times outrage.

As both Mary and Anne are pawns in the family game, there are shared experiences. Mary provides Anne with intelligence with how to keep Henry interested and excited without getting into bed with him. Mary sees Anne’s exhaustion in private and provides her with emotional support. It is hard to read about Anne’s efforts without feeling at least some sympathy for her.

At the same time, Anne knows that her star is ascendant over Mary’s, and never lets Mary forget it. She takes Mary’s support for granted, even as she does nothing to help. In one instance, when Anne is informing Mary of all the titles and lands she’s managed to win over for their family, Mary asks if anything is coming her way. Anne dismisses her request as irrelevant, as she is only the other Boleyn girl. She even goes so far as to take custody of Mary and Henry’s son, as much to secure her position in Henry’s court as to prove her superiority over her sister.  

`Anne wins her crown. King Henry divorces Katherine and locks her away. Anne is crowned queen, `though London is disturbingly silent at her coronation. All she has to do now is produce an heir, which is easier said than done.

Here I once again found myself sympathizing with Anne. Modern science tells us a lot about how children are conceived and carried to term, but in the 16th Century there was a lot of religious belief mixed in with both. Anne bore only one child, a daughter (Queen Elizabeth), and has several miscarriages. In King Henry’s court, this was seen as a sign of sin, either due to the conspiring of Anne or due to darker acts. As much as Anne was an antagonist to Mary, to see her heading to an end caused by factors beyond her knowledge and control was difficult.

Mary’s survival and Anne’s fall

Mary survives because she, finally, rebels against her family. Her first husband dead, she falls in love with a man in the service of her uncle, William Stafford. After secret courting, Mary chooses to run with him and marry in secret, returning in time for the coronation of her sister. They keep the secret for almost a year, and are banished when found out, at least until Anne becomes pregnant again and sends for Mary.

Mary, without the influence of her family and away from court, finds life enjoyable. She worked on the farm with her husband, bore another child, worked with her hands. She was happy.

Anne does not have a happy ending. The protections Henry destroyed to remove Queen Katherine no longer remained to protect Anne, and she is one of many taken and accused to incest and witchcraft, along with George. Historians generally agree this was a trumped-up excuse, but the book hints there to be some truth to the charges. The family leaves both siblings to be executed.

Mary survives because her act of finding happiness – putting herself before her family – removed her enough from Anne’s schemes that she was hunted. William kept her from coming forward and out of danger. The two focused instead on getting the first two children out of danger. With Anne’s execution, her hold on the children is severed and Mary has her family back.

Conclusion

The Other Boleyn Girl has two dynamic characters interacting with each other. Mary, the passive pawn whose rebellion eventually leads to her survival, and Anne, the committed strategist who plays her part to the end. Both women elicit sympathy for the game they are forced to play from a young age, and for the toxic family they grew up in. Both elicit disdain for their actions as part of the family plan.

What I like most about the book is how both character’s fates are tied to their response to the game. Mary, upset over how she’s treated by her family, rebels against the family’s plan and is ultimately saved. Anne, an expert manipulator when she can control Henry, falls victim to intrigue when she cannot. Mary stops playing and wins; Anne keeps playing and loses.

I rate this as one of the better books in the series. I get to see a sympathetic character survive (unlike Anne Neville and Margaret Pole) to have a happy ending. It has not been a common ending in the series, and I don’t expect that to change anytime soon.

Book Report: Three Sisters, Three Queens

Book Eight in the series (halfway through) follows Margaret Tudor, older sister to King Henry VIII and Queen of Scotland. The book takes place between November of 1501 and the summer of 1533. The title is a reference to the relationship and paths of Margaret and her sister Mary, Queen of France, and sister-in-law Katherina of Aragorn, Queen of England.

Overall, I liked this book. Not only did we get a chance to see how Scotland of the 16th century worked, but we get to see the same events of previous books through lenses that completely change how we interpret them. I found it a fascinating read.

Margaret in the Book

Margaret Tudor is introduced as a young woman in the Tudor court of Henry VII. She has the Tudor arrogance and belief in their divine right to rule, pickled with the humility enforced by the Red Queen and her supposed reduced value as a princess. She is present for the death of Arthur and the beginning of Katherine’s years of exile from court. Margaret is then married to James IV of Scotland and sent north.

As Queen of Scotland, Margaret has a tumultuous life. She bears the next king of Scotland, but James is then killed in battle with the English (under Katherine’s banner, which Margaret never truly forgives her for). French and English factions at court threaten both her and her son. She falls for a Scottish lord and marries him in secret, upsetting the Scottish families and her brother. Her husband, it turns out, is stealing her wealth and putting his clan over the safety of the nation, yet because he is her husband she had little recourse to save herself or protect her son. He is eventually disposed, and her son safe.

While Margaret is navigating the intricacies of Scottish politics and her own heart, she is in constant correspondence with Henry, Katherine and Mary. These letters tie the book in with the rest of the series.

Margaret and Katherine

Margaret’s relationship with Katherine changes constantly throughout the novel and is dependent on Katherine’s position in relation to Margaret. When Katherine is in a superior or stable position, she is Katherine of Arrogant, and Margaret is dismissive of her advise. When Katherine is reduced or suffering, Margaret is more sympathetic.

Where Margaret and Katherine’s stories truly conflict is in regard to divorce. As we saw in The Constant Princess, the concept of divorce is seen as a threat to women everywhere. Women cannot work for themselves (or rarely can) and if a man can set his wife aside at will, then all women are threatened.

But Margaret’s second marriage is an example of the dangers of not having the option of divorce. Her second husband, Archibald Douglas, uses his position to steal her income for himself. Margarets attempts to defend herself and protect her son, King James V, are often ignored because he is her husband, and it is his right to steal from her.

Both Margaret and Katherine know that Margaret’s success will doom Katherine. Henry is looking for a reason to set Katherine aside so he can marry Anne Boleyn and sire an heir. Katherine repeatedly writes to Margaret to respect her marriage, as terrible as it is, so that her own will survive.

I read these exchanges with interest. I know Katherine’s impossible situation and understand how devastating the concept of divorce would be. At the same time, I’m reading Margaret’s impossible situation and knowing that divorce is her only salvation (that or untimely death). I know how it ends for Katherine. I was invested in learning how it ends for Margaret.

Margaret and Mary

Of the three sisters, Mary Tudor was the one I expected the least from. I barely remember her from earlier books. She’s the younger sister, married to the King of France for three months before his death, then married in secret to a friend of Henry’s before her return to London. Her early letters are about dresses and hair styles and jewelry and lack much substance.

Mary’s second marriage is much like Margaret’s second, yet the two are received entirely differently. Mary’s results in acceptance and a heavy fine, while Margaret’s takes much longer and some bloodshed to achieve any recognition. Mary’s is longstanding and true, but Margaret’s turns false and ends in divorce. Several times I came to the conclusion that Margaret, as much as she sees Mary as frivolous, she is also jealous that Mary gets to lead an easier life.

Mary is easily dismissed early on, but towards the end her letters become important windows into Henry’s court. She writes of the shift of Henry’s attention and the court moving its focus from Katherine to Anne, and how impetuous Anne and her family becomes as Anne’s influence grows. Anne acts as a queen long before Katherine is removed. Her family even goes so far as to assault and murder their opponents without fear of punishment, indicating just how far Henry is willing to let Anne have her way.

Margaret and Henry

The relationship between Margaret and Henry has two aspects. One is political, regarding their respective royal positions, and the other is legal, regarding their respective and evolving positions on divorce.

Politically, Henry expects Margaret to act as an extension of the English Court rather than an independent Queen of Scotland. In fact, we learn that much of the Scottish court and nobility is in the pay of either the English or French courts. Her decisions to marry Archibald, then her attempts to remove herself from his control, are constantly viewed by Henry as an embarrassment. We, as the reader, know she is navigating Scottish politics, but Henry does not see that. He instead tries to influence and intimidate her into passive acceptance of her situation.

Legally, Henry does not support her attempts to divorce until he himself becomes interested in divorcing Katherine. He spends much of the book telling her to be a devout wife, but then suddenly shifts his tone. He not only promotes divorce but attempts to convince James V to follow his lead and separate from the Catholic Church, citing not only the power but the wealth one can obtain from raiding the churches. James rejects the notion, but the cynical nature of Henry’s decision is clearly obvious.

Conclusion

I liked this book. I liked learning about Scotland of the time. And I liked how the author managed to give us the same events that we’ve already seen but through new lenses that change how those events were interpreted. Easy to see how the same action can be great for one individual (Margaret’s divorce from Archibald), and terrible for another (Katherine’s divorce from Henry). I look forward to continuing in the series.

Book Report: The King’s Curse

The King’s Curse, set between November of 1499 and May of 1541, is about the Tudors and their heirs. The book follows Margaret Pole, senior member of the defeated Plantagenet line during the reins of Tudor Henry VII and Henry VIII, as she tries to navigate the increasingly chaotic times of the later king’s reign. She is not a main character in the histories, but her position as mother to important actors in the court of Henry VIII gives the reader a larger view of the events that led to the English Reformation.

As with other books in the series, the title refers to the main character: Margaret Pole, as the senior or at least closest living Plantagenet heir, is a constant reminder to the Tudor king that there are others with a claim to the throne. Yet the title takes on so much more during this book. At various times, I read the King’s Curse to mean:

  • The sweating sickness, a reoccurring plague attributed to the Tudors, that often sweeps across the land
  • Any king’s need to have a male heir to continue to line
  • Henry VIII’s inability to conceive a child, or for those children to survive.
  • Henry’s descent into tyranny and/or madness

Of the books in the series so far, this was one of the roughest to read. Unlike the Wars of the Roses, I know something of the Tudor years and Henry VIII. Knowing what is coming and watching the characters antagonizing over trying to stop it, and knowing how it will end, is intense. Not going to lie; there were a few times I stopped reading early on the bus ride because I needed a break. 

Family Fortunes

Margaret Pole, the niece of two York kings, is aware of her family’s dangerous position. The story starts with the execution of her brother, Edward of Warwick. She is married to a minor supporter of the Tudors (as one of Margaret Beaufort’s efforts to humiliate a York princess). And Henry VII is well known for his network of spies and his vindictive and crippling penalties for real or imagined slights.

Pole’s husband commands the castle where Henry’s eldest son and his new wife, Arthur and Katherine of Aragon, are to spend their time after their wedding. This time is short lived, as a sickness passed through the castle, taking Arthur and leaving Katherine a widow. Margaret becomes a conspirator with the princess to claim the marriage was not consummated and that she is free to marry the other son, Henry. This puts her in conflict with Margaret Beaufort, who seeks to discredit the princess and force her out.

Pole’s is cast from the court, her children’s opportunities cut short. This is further exasperated by the death of her husband and the Tudor abrogation of their responsibilities to their family. Beaufort once again demands Pole’s support against Katherine of Aragon. When Pole refuses, Beaufort continues to apply pressure, forcing the family disperse to monasteries to survive. Pole’s fortunes seem dark.

The New King

Pole’s fortunes change with the death of Henry VII and the elevation of his son. Margaret Beaufort’s power is broken, and Katherine of Aragon becomes queen. Pole and her family are pulled from the monasteries they’d taken refuge in, their lands are returned, and their fortunes reversed. Beaufort dies a short while later (Pole’s interpretation is that she refuses to see a court where she is replaced by younger and more beautiful women making merry where she would counsel humility.) Things are looking up.

This is where Pole’s position and the focus of the story becomes clear. Pole is a friend of the queen and a figure of some importance to the young king, which gives her some prominence. Her sons become important nobles in the king’s court and one a scholar of some note in the Catholic church.  As such, either through her own experiences or through correspondence, she is well placed to see the events leading up to the English Reformation.

The Divine Need for Princes

Henry has the firm belief in the divine right of Tudor rule. Pole, chosen to be the governess of the Tudor children, gets to see this belief tested as Katherine suffers miscarriages and weak children. Only one of six pregnancies delivers a healthy child, and that’s a princess (the future Queen Mary). Despite having a strong grandmother (see, I complimented Margaret Beaufort!) Henry is obsessed with a male heir. He sires an illegitimate son with another woman and recognizes him as a potential heir, but he’s frustrated that Katherine continues to fail to give him a legitimate prince.

Is the marriage cursed because Katherine lied about her consummating her marriage to Arthur? Is there a curse against the Tudor line for murdering the Princes in the Tower? Henry beings to search for a way to set Katherine aside, an act that the women of the story find abhorrent. To acknowledge that a husband can set aside a wife at will would be to ‘overthrow the safety of every woman in England.’

Henry persists, and one of Pole’s son (the Catholic scholar) is involved in researching how this might come about. But just as Pole is convinced that the Catholic church can bring Henry to heel, so is Henry convinced that he is right. He brazenly says so to Mary in the presence of Pole.

‘And I am doing God’s will. God speaks directly to kings, you know, So anyone who speaks against me is speaking against the will of God Himself. They all say that – the men of the new learning. They all write it. It is indisputable. I am obeying the will of God and your mother, mistakenly, is following her own ambition.’  

Conspiracy

Pole is stuck in a tough position. Her family is dependent on Henry for their fortune; yet even that does not protect all of them. Royal agents remove her chaplains and reduce their monastery to nothing; one goes as far as to threaten to take back some of their lands for little to no reason other than she’s shown support for the Queen over the King. Her scholastic son sends a report that does not support the king’s position and is effectively exiled.

The old Plantagenet forces come into play, not to necessarily overthrow Henry but to try to get him to see reason or to accept the situation he sees himself in. Many letters Pole reads or writes end with ‘Burn this’. Opportunities to oppose the king come and go; some are missed, some are avoided, some are taken but fail to bring the desired outcome.

The king’s divine faith in himself leads to the English Reformation, though to Pole it looks more like madness. Henry sets aside Katherine and begins running through wives. Anne Boleyn is executed. Jane Seymour dies. Henry separates England from the church and no heir comes. Mary is forced to acknowledge that she is illegitimate, and Pole must accept that in order see her at all.

Henry’s tyranny is widespread. Monasteries are dissolved and their wealth taken. Those who irritate the king find themselves in the Tower. Executions, even of those who were once his great supporters, becomes commonplace. (Which does allow for one moment of karma, when a man who arrogantly harasses Pole several times in the book falls victim to the machinery he built.)

Remember above when I mentioned how this book got hard to read? A lot of that came from this part of the novel. As a historian I can appreciate how the Reformation fits into the grand story of Europe and Christianity, but man did it suck for a lot of individual people and families.

Conclusion

Margaret Pole’s position in the series is less central than the other stories so far. But that gives the reader a much broader view of the events of Henry VIII’s decisions that begin the English Reformation. The information provided to Pole via her friends and family members gives her and by extension us a story that is more about a changing society and not about one king – or one family’s – quest for power.

The book was rough to read at some points, and I’m worried how the next few books will go as we continue into the queens and chaos of Henry VIII. Reformations being what they are, I’m pretty sure I’ll continue to be cutting my bus readings early. And we’re not even halfway through the series.

Book Report: Constant Princess

Book 6 in Philippa Gregory’s series is The Constant Princess, about Katherine of Aragorn, first wife of King Henry VIII, and takes place between Autumn of 1501 and Autumn of 1513 (barring a prologue and epilogue set years before and after each). Born Catalina, daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain, Katherine is told from her birth that she is to be queen of England. The time and effort it takes for that to come about gives us the title of the book.

The Story

The journey is not easy. Katherine comes to England to marry King Henry VII’s eldest prince, Arthur, heir and beloved son. The marriage is rocky to start, with neither spouse enjoying the other, but an illness forces them to revisit their relationship and they fall in love. For several months, they spend each night with each other, sharing grandiose visions of what they shall do with England once they are monarchs. Those visions are cut short by Arthur’s death in 1502, after only five months of marriage.

On his deathbed, Arthur asks Katherine to promise to claim they did not consummate their marriage, allowing her to marry his younger brother Henry and rise to the throne for their grand designs. The marriage is promised early, but then Katherine spends years in exile, not allowed to be part of the English court, unable to go home. It takes the death of Henry VII to finally bring about the marriage and her installment as queen.

The Next Generation

With this book, the series has moved past the last of the Wars of the Roses queens and into the next generation of characters. Not only do we see the death of Henry VII, the last monarch of those wars, but we get to see the end of Margaret of Beaufort, the Red Queen.

Margaret Beaufort, as portrayed in this book series, struck so many of my character peeves that I looked forward to every slap in the face or minor setback she received from the characters since halfway through Red Queen. The mentality that any action she does, no matter how heinous, is okay because she’s God’s chosen, is so insulting and juvenile.  I enjoyed the snubs that Elizabeth of York gave in The White Princess, and I enjoyed watching Margaret’s decline and death in The Constant Princess. The decision Katherine makes to cut Margaret funeral plans to a more modest size is just the sort of deserved insult that Margaret would find infuriating, and as a reader I find completely deserving.

As the next generation of English nobles rise, we see that they’re going to be different from the generations we read through the Wars of the Roses with. These leaders are men who have not faced the constant warfare of the Wars, whose position is largely secured. As a result, they are arrogant and rude. Henry is a boy in a man’s position, enjoying life, while Katherine rules the country in his name. He views war as an adventure to advance his position; she views it as a way to advance their country and Christendom.

Knowing what I do about what’s coming next for England, I can see how it’s going to come about.

A Spanish View

Katherine’s Spanish origins come into play significantly during the story, not just in differences in leadership and ideology, but as a way of critiquing English (and in some ways Catholic) life of the period. Spain of Katherine’s time was a battleground for Christian versus Muslim rulers, so Katherine is much aware of Islamic learning –  mathematics, medicine, science –  and artwork. All of which, particularly the learning, is missing from English culture.

‘There is not a University in England that studies medicine,’ Katherine said bitterly. ‘There is not one that teaches languages. There is not one that teaches astronomy, or mathematics, geometry, geography, cosmography or even the study of animals, or plants. The universities of England are about as much use as a monetary full of monks coloring in the margins of sacred texts.’

The comments come into play as Katherine experiences worry over not conceiving a child, and finds no one able to provide even a mote of support. The problem is not confined to England; Katherine mentions how her mother would destroy Moorish universities and evict Islamic scholars under the direction of the Pope. Her spiritual desire to follow papal orders wars with her human desire to understand what, if anything, is wrong with her. The one learned doctor she meets – covertly – is an Islamic doctor who happened to be travelling through London. Even there, the arrogance and conceit of Katherine towards him is embarrassing to read.

As a history major, knowing what I do about the coming dominance of Europe over the rest of the world, it’s hard to understand this sort of reasoning. Willful ignorance makes no sense to me, yet here’s an entire civilization that revels in it. I shake my head at the wonder of it all.

Third vs. First

This book has a new style for the series, that jumps between First and Third person.

The majority of the book is done Third Person, and jumps to other characters who aren’t Katherine more often than previous books did. This allows the reader to experience the story that’s happening beyond Katherine’s eyes, almost a necessity since Katherine spends so much of the book in virtual exile.  

The sections done in First Person follow Katherine’s inner monologue, or describe events that are best seen from her perspective. Some of these are instances where she’s remembering home in Spain and what she misses about it. Others are moments dealing with extreme emotions and worries she can’t let the court see.

The changes can happen multiple times per chapter, giving us the events that Katherine is dealing with, and her internal monologue as she thinks and responds. It’s not the first time I’ve seen this particular mechanism used, but I’ve never tried it myself. Maybe I’ll give it a shot.

Conclusion

The Constant Princess is a book that leads itself to a lot of ‘What the hell is wrong with you?’ questions aimed at the characters and the world they live in. I’d rate it pretty good; it’s not great, but the critique of English life from a foreign view point and the death of Margaret Beaufort both raise my appreciation for the book. We’re not yet halfway through the series as a whole, and the book stands as a transition from the Wars of the Roses to the Tudor era.  I expect to see a lot more of Katherine of Aragorn over the next few books.