I think an interesting point got raised in the comments, that Gregory feminizes history but doesn't write feminist history. Like Tocotin, I don't get a feminist vibe from her books. I just finished The White Queen, and I was surprised to see a comment in the interview with the author at the end of the book about how she's so interested in the fact that strong women were called witches. TWQ almost exclusively uses witchcraft or vague supernatural stuff to explain Elizabeth Woodville's power. I feel like there's a difference between exploring the idea that women's knowledge (healing, midwifery, etc) got labeled "magic" and the idea that it was magic, if that makes sense. So, in that sense, I feel like it's feminized history more than feminist history.
That was interesting. I devoured The Other Boleyn Girl when I was in high school, but I haven't read any of her books since The White Queen. I think of her books the way I thought of The Tudors TV show: it's fun, I enjoyed it, it's history-lite and there's nothing wrong with that.
Those were my feelings as well. The writing is indifferent, and I found her characterizations a bit shallow. I really, really wanted to like The Red Queen and the White Queen. I really did. But her constant harping on the river/witch thing kind of put me off. It seemed to be "mysterious" without being interesting. Just kind of . . . random. I felt it distanced me, the reader, instead of giving me more insight into the character.
And now I really, really want to like The White Princess, because the relationship between Elizabeth of York and Henry Tudor is intriguing. Maybe Gregory will surprise me!