PDA

View Full Version : Which one of Henry VIII's wives do you like best?



Susan Breen
01-03-2009, 07:32 PM
I've been reading Alison Weir's book--The Six Wives of Henry VIII and I can't get over what great characters those women were. You could probably write a book on characterization about them. But anyway, I like Anne Boleyn best because she was such a "virago," as Alison Weir puts it, which seems much nicer than how one might. She got herself into so much trouble.
Then there's: "stubborn and devoutly Catholic" Katherine of Aragon
'deceptively strong willed Jane Seymour
"unappealing and uncomplaining Anne of Cleves"
"young and foolish Katherine Howard"
and "brave, practical and intelligent Katherine Parr."

Anyone else have a favorite?

vixey
01-03-2009, 07:42 PM
I've never 'studied' Henry the 8th's wives but now I feel inspired to. I love strong women. My initial reaction was Ann Boleyn, but that's more because of the film. ;)

*plans trip to library to find Allison Weir's book*

mscelina
01-03-2009, 07:47 PM
I've always liked Anne Boleyn--after all, the King threw over the Church for her--but my favorite is Katharine Parr. She had to deal with Henry at his worst--both temper wise and health wise, and yet managed to survive him. Smart lady. She almost got busted once, but was smart enough to weasel herself out of it.

Shadow_Ferret
01-03-2009, 07:56 PM
Which one was hawt? That's the one I'ld like.

Susan Breen
01-03-2009, 08:06 PM
There's a painting in the book of Anne Boleyn at the time she met Henry and then Anne Boleyn about three years later and stress does age you. And if you see the painting of Jane Seymour, you have to laugh if you compare her to the Jane Seymour in The Tudors.

bethany
01-03-2009, 08:08 PM
Well, the first season of The Tudors left me praying for Anne to be beheaded asap. I liked her before that, just because she was Elizabeth's mom and I always liked Elizabeth.

Cranky
01-03-2009, 09:18 PM
Hmmm. All of Henry's wives were interesting to me (with perhaps the exception of Catherine Howard), but I've always thought that Anne of Cleves ended up on the right end of things. :)

scarletpeaches
01-03-2009, 10:00 PM
I've been reading Alison Weir's book--The Six Wives of Henry VIII and I can't get over what great characters those women were. You could probably write a book on characterization about them. But anyway, I like Anne Boleyn best because she was such a "virago," as Alison Weir puts it, which seems much nicer than how one might. She got herself into so much trouble.
Then there's: "stubborn and devoutly Catholic" Katherine of Aragon
'deceptively strong willed Jane Seymour
"unappealing and uncomplaining Anne of Cleves"
"young and foolish Katherine Howard"
and "brave, practical and intelligent Katherine Parr."

Anyone else have a favorite?

I can't stand Alison Weir's books. She's one of those pseudo-historians who decides whether someone's a goodie or a baddie and then fits the 'evidence' around her own opinion.

For instance, in that very book you're reading, she calls Anne Boleyn all the names under the sun.

On what basis?

Henry VIII saying he'd been bewitched, and she'd done things to him sexually only a whore would know how to do.

When did he say this?

In 1536 - when he was trying to get rid of her!

So, right, Alison, you think he was in his right mind and being entirely truthful there, huh?

Jeez. I need to calm down. But really, you'd do a lot better to read Joanna Denny's biographies, or Eric Ives' book on Anne Boleyn to get a more truthful picture.

But to answer your original question, I'm most drawn to Anne Boleyn. Of course. I believe she was a virgin when she married Henry VIII. (Joanna Denny's book will explain why better than I ever could).

Many people have alleged she must have done something to Henry to keep him interested and she did.

She said "No."

Drove him wild. He couldn't bear to be denied and was the sort of man to lose interest once he'd got what he wanted.


I've never 'studied' Henry the 8th's wives but now I feel inspired to. I love strong women. My initial reaction was Ann Boleyn, but that's more because of the film. ;)

*plans trip to library to find Allison Weir's book*

Don't bother. It's shite.


Well, the first season of The Tudors left me praying for Anne to be beheaded asap. I liked her before that, just because she was Elizabeth's mom and I always liked Elizabeth.

The Tudors as a drama series is about as close to historical accuracy as black is close to white.

mscelina
01-03-2009, 10:05 PM
Yes, there's little doubt that Anne remained a virgin through all the years of their courtship, but *counting on ye olde fingers* there is a bit of evidence for a secret wedding ceremony BEFORE the divorce was finalized in the courts of England. There's some evidence to support a secret wedding at York which would legitimize Elizabeth but would eternally mark Henry VIII as a bigamist at the very least.

And scarlet, I agree with you. Most people find it difficult to reconcile the 'great whore, Anne Boleyn' with the truly pious Reformer that she was as Queen. Henry expected ALL of his Queens to be pious and she truly was a strong proponent for the Protestant faith in England.

scarletpeaches
01-03-2009, 10:07 PM
Ah, a fellow Anne-fan! mscelina, I knew there was a reason I loved you. :D

Samantha's_Song
01-03-2009, 10:12 PM
When I was living in a bedsit, in my late 20's, I used to live next door to a Katherine Parr. She was the most hideous specimen of woman I had ever seen, and the only interesting thing about her was, she liked to pretend she was lady muck. Yet lady much was shagging the ugliest and scruffiest of taxi-drivers that you could ever find. She shagged him for over 11 years and is probably still waiting for him to leave his wife for her. She eventually bought her own house just in the hopes that he would move in with her... What a waste of life and a waste of money, I wouldn't wait 11 years for any man.

robeiae
01-03-2009, 10:52 PM
Which one of Henry VIII's wives do you like best?


Third from the left. No, wait...second. No, third.

Samantha's_Song
01-03-2009, 10:55 PM
The one with the biggest tits :D





Third from the left. No, wait...second. No, third.

Grrarrgh
01-03-2009, 11:37 PM
I just got that same book yesterday, although I haven't started it yet. On the whole I'd say Anne Boleyn is my favorite, although not on the basis of Alison Weir's books, lest scartletpeaches run me through. ;) Ann of Cleves was probably the luckiest of the 6, and Catherine of Aragon would run a close second as my favorite. Anne Boleyn was fascinating and so historically mis-represented.
And scarlet is right on another point - that Tudors TV show got most of the names of the major characters right, but that's about it. If you want to watch it for its soap-opera-like entertainment, go for it. If you're looking for historical fact, stay far, far away.
And I'll definitely look up the books by Joanna Denny - I'm always looking for more books on that topic/time period. Thanks!

scarletpeaches
01-03-2009, 11:39 PM
Denny wrote two biographies as far as I know, one about Anne Boleyn and one about Katherine Howard.

I'd also recommend Jean Plaidy's novels.

Regarding The Tudors, the TV show; it angers me beyond belief that they've turned one of the most fascinating periods of English history into a bedhopping soap opera and when people watch it and believe it's the truth, I want to smack them upside the head for being so gullible.

Then I remember Jonathan Rhys Meyers takes his clothes off a lot in it, and I feel happy. :)

Ol' Fashioned Girl
01-03-2009, 11:56 PM
I couldn't get past the first couple of installments of The Tudors, and I'm painfully addicted to anything Tudor.

As for my favorite... some days it's Katherine. What a long-suffering woman, trapped in a situation totally out of her control. And other days, it's Anne... for the same reason.

Cranky
01-03-2009, 11:57 PM
Denny wrote two biographies as far as I know, one about Anne Boleyn and one about Katherine Howard.

I'd also recommend Jean Plaidy's novels.

Regarding The Tudors, the TV show; it angers me beyond belief that they've turned one of the most fascinating periods of English history into a bedhopping soap opera and when people watch it and believe it's the truth, I want to smack them upside the head for being so gullible.

Then I remember Jonathan Rhys Meyers takes his clothes off a lot in it, and I feel happy. :)


I heart Jean Plaidy!

brad_b
01-04-2009, 12:58 AM
Jane Seymour - nice looking and her Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman was a heart-warming TV series that got her a Golden Globe Award, and the only one of Henry's wives still around (she sure ages well)

Claudia Gray
01-04-2009, 02:34 AM
Catherine of Aragon, who is underestimated and was unfairly maligned, but was the only one of the wives to publicly shame Henry for his selfishness and willful deceit.

scarletpeaches
01-04-2009, 02:38 AM
Maybe the others would have been the same, if their nephew had been King of Spain and had also been related to the Pope.

Was she brave - or protected through her family ties?

StevenJ
01-04-2009, 02:39 AM
I like Oscar Wilde's story about Anne of Cleves: How she deliberately made herself up to look unappealing. Years later, Henry was hunting & could hear beautiful singing from a distant meadow. When he looked across the field, he saw Anne singing happily in the arms of her lover. :)

xiaotien
01-04-2009, 02:45 AM
def anne boelyn. she fascinates me.
if i could go back in time to spy--it'd be on her.
such a tragic ending to her ambitions, and she
never knew how great her "bastard" daughter became.

StevenJ
01-04-2009, 02:59 AM
I think Anne Boleyn was so maligned by historians (in a similar way that Diana was, particularly after her death) because:

1. The Powers That Be always control the writing of history.
2. Positing Anne as some kid of witch (literally and figuratively) is a more exciting angle for history writers & readers than the 'truth' of her personality. And let's face it, there's always been a tendency for historians to demonise powerful women, throughout recorded history.

A similar case would be that of Lucrezia Borgia; in most histories, she's painted as evil, insatiable...yet in a few (like Mario Puzo's The Family), she's a wonderful, charming person.

scarletpeaches
01-04-2009, 03:04 AM
Anne Boleyn was painted as a witch to absolve Henry from all responsibility for her death. She needed to die because Catherine of Aragon was dead, pure and simple.

If Catherine had still been alive, Anne's death would have meant Henry would have been forced by public and clergy's opinion, to return to his first wife. For as long as Catherine was alive, Anne was safe.

But as Catherine died in January of 1536, Anne's being dead meant Henry would be free to choose another wife - which, days after Anne's death, he did.

Ol' Fashioned Girl
01-04-2009, 03:22 AM
Maybe the others would have been the same, if their nephew had been King of Spain and had also been related to the Pope.

Was she brave - or protected through her family ties?

Very interesting question. Charles V was also the Holy Roman Emperor as well as being King of Spain - making him angry meant Hal might have been forced to go to war with 3/4s of Europe.

Alan Yee
01-04-2009, 04:00 AM
I own Alison Weir's The Six Wives of Henry VIII (I love British history, especially the Tudor and Stuart eras), and I noticed what Scarlet said about how Weir seemed to have a personal grudge against Anne Boleyn for some reason. She even tried to make it sound like she poisoned Katherine of Aragon and Henry's illegitimate son, Henry Fitzroy, Duke of Richmond and Somerset. Never mind that Henry Fitzroy died in July of 1536, over two months after Anne lost her head.

Alan Yee
01-04-2009, 04:03 AM
As for my favorite... some days it's Katherine. What a long-suffering woman, trapped in a situation totally out of her control. And other days, it's Anne... for the same reason.

Which Katherine? Which Anne? There were three Katherines and two Annes. Jane Seymour was the only one with a unique first name. I assume you mean Katherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn, since they're the most talked-about wives.

scarletpeaches
01-04-2009, 04:12 AM
Whether this means anything about her personal honesty or not I don't know, but the author photograph Weir uses on most of her books is about twenty years old.

Yes, even on the newly-published ones.

Susan Breen
01-04-2009, 04:45 AM
I plan to use my author photo for the next twenty years, so I have no quarrel with Alison Weir there. What I liked--Loved!--about this book was that the characters were so rich. I don't know if they're true, but I was just completely engaged with these women and drawn into the story.

Ol' Fashioned Girl
01-04-2009, 04:48 AM
Which Katherine? Which Anne? There were three Katherines and two Annes. Jane Seymour was the only one with a unique first name. I assume you mean Katherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn, since they're the most talked-about wives.

You assume correctly.

xiaotien
01-04-2009, 05:00 AM
i actually picked up alison's "the lady elizabeth" while
in england this past christmas. (just back on new year's eve.)
i recommend to anyone who loves anne boleyn and
elizabeth I. i found her writing very good felt it was better
done than p gregory's works--which i've read quite a few, too.
the book was thoroughly engrossing and well-written.

to date, i had only read weir's non-fiction titles.

[spoiler] weir makes elizabeth at age 14 or so pregnant
then miscarry. interesting interpretation of what may have
happened between her and thomas seymore (sp). i think it was
tom.

scarletpeaches
01-04-2009, 05:07 AM
I plan to use my author photo for the next twenty years, so I have no quarrel with Alison Weir there. What I liked--Loved!--about this book was that the characters were so rich. I don't know if they're true, but I was just completely engaged with these women and drawn into the story.

They might have been rich but they were for the most part fictional.

You'd be better off reading David Starkey's Six Wives.

StevenJ
01-04-2009, 10:49 PM
Anyone else read Antonia Fraser's 'The Six Wives of Henry VIII'?
I thought it was very good.
Henry's behaviour makes me ashamed to be male, BTW...

scarletpeaches
01-04-2009, 10:50 PM
I have, StevenJ. Loved it. In fact, I might read it again inspired by this thread. Starkey's books, though enjoyable, are slightly more political/academic. I'll go back to Six Wives or the Fraser book soon.

StevenJ
01-04-2009, 10:57 PM
The book inspired me to ponder: what on earth happened to change Henry?
The part dealing with the burgeoning love between H & Catherine of Aragon was so charming...yet he eventually became some kind of monster. :(

katiemac
01-04-2009, 11:03 PM
The book inspired me to ponder: what on earth happened to change Henry?
The part dealing with the burgeoning love between H & Catherine of Aragon was so charming...yet he eventually became some kind of monster. :(

Paranoia is my personal take on it. He was young when he took the crown, and had hordes of people vying for positions and money. They schemed and yes, they used him, to get what they wanted. Many of the depictions of him I've read (also a Tudor history fan here) suggest he was easily molded to be what someone wanted him to be as long as he was flattered along the way. In his older years, once he caught wind of the scheming (no doubt the Anne Boleyn conspiracies pushed it along, then the death of Jane, the woman he claimed he loved/trusted), his paranoia and bitterness got the better of him.

scarletpeaches
01-04-2009, 11:06 PM
Possibly, and this is pure speculation, syphilis?

Remember Anne Boleyn was overheard telling someone that in the bedroom Henry had neither vertu nor puissance, (neither skill nor power) and his dinkle troubles could have been the onset of some sexual disease, given that he was a late-medieval horndog.

And it was round about this time that he became a bit of a bloater whereas before he had been known as the handsomest prince in Christendom (flattering the king, or the truth? Who knows?) so his weight might have had some effect on his performance too.

He does seem to have gone a bit, and here I use the correct medical term, doolally.

Cranky
01-04-2009, 11:10 PM
Paranoia is my personal take on it. He was young when he took the crown, and had hordes of people vying for positions and money. They schemed and yes, they used him, to get what they wanted. Many of the depictions of him I've read (also a Tudor history fan here) suggest he was easily molded to be what someone wanted him to be as long as he was flattered along the way. In his older years, once he caught wind of the scheming (no doubt the Anne Boleyn conspiracies pushed it along, then the death of Jane, the woman he claimed he loved/trusted), his paranoia and bitterness got the better of him.

I think that's a pretty fair assessment. :) I know that Henry's father never felt terribly secure on his own throne (hence his son's obsession with a male heir, to continue the line), and there were all sorts of claims on it from various pretenders.

The story about Henry VII plucking the crown out of a bush* after the battle illustrates just how precarious they all felt, no matter the marriage between Henry and Elizabeth to unite their families claims. People felt that due to his (Henry VII's) father's Welsh ancestry and relatively low birth meant they weren't really "royal". But since so many people with stronger claims were killed off in the War of The Roses, he held on. Not easy, though, and Henry and his siblings grew up watching the aftermath, which wasn't pretty.

*that's just a story, though, AFAIK

scarletpeaches
01-04-2009, 11:14 PM
Henry VIII was the rightful king of England, though not through his father. His mother had the stronger claim, that's assuming her two brothers really were dead - and I believe Richard III to be innocent of all accusations regarding that 'crime', but that's probably an entirely new topic itself.

That said, Henry VII was only king by right of conquest, the first time that had happened in over 500 years. He only married Elizabeth Plantagenet to strengthen his own claim, and I've always wondered why she agreed to the marriage.

Cranky
01-04-2009, 11:17 PM
From what I understand, Margaret Beaufort was a very formidable woman. I'm sure she probably had a hand in "encouraging" things along between Henry and Elizabeth.

She was pretty much THE mover and shaker, wasn't she? That's really a question, too, btw. :)

scarletpeaches
01-04-2009, 11:22 PM
She was a bloody termagant.

However, I don't think she would have been able to force the more-royal Elizabeth to marry her son entirely against her will.

That said, she (MB) may have played on her (EP) fears of being a woman alone. Henry VII might have been seen as a protector. Better to be the wife of an invading king than a woman with no family left to look after her I suppose. And she might have looked ahead to her child ascending to the throne, thereby correcting the royal lineage. Sure, Henry VII's son became king, but he was also Elizabeth's son, and therefore had royal blood in his veins.

My pet subject, this. I know more about English history than Scottish!:D

Cranky
01-04-2009, 11:24 PM
That's what I had been thinking, too, but it's good to know I'm not the only one. :D

I don't know as much as I'd like about Tudor history, so I love threads like these.

scarletpeaches
01-04-2009, 11:26 PM
I'm so fascinated by this period and the previous century I'm giving serious thought to joining the Ricardian Society.

The only King of England with his own fanclub!

And the only King of England never to receive a proper funeral.

Cranky
01-04-2009, 11:30 PM
There's a fan club for him?

Learn something new every day around here, I do. :D

scarletpeaches
01-04-2009, 11:34 PM
Behold!

http://www.richardiii.net/

mscelina
01-04-2009, 11:35 PM
Actually, scarlet, Anne's brother George said in court that Henry VIII was impotent. Already well aware that he was going to be condemned to death, as was his sister, I like to think of it as a moment of "Who's the man now, Your Majesty?" ie--you can cut off my head but at least I can still get laid. Anne's mistake was in thinking that after she finally gained all of her ambitions, her power over Henry would remain unchanged. Both she and Katharine of Aragon were brilliant women, as evidenced by their behavior during their treason and divorce trials respectively.

I enjoy Starkey's Six Wives as well as his book on Elizabeth--and I collect Tudor literature both fictional and non fictional. The real demonization of Anne Boleyn happened in the Victorian era, because she used her formidable sexuality to ensnare a King. There's no doubt that Anne knew exactly what he was doing and her uncle, the Duke of Norfolk, tried to mould poor silly Catherine Howard to follow the same path just as the Seymours manipulated Jane to do the same.

Margaret Beaufort, coming as she did from an illegitimate strain of the Plantagenet line, knew exactly what she had to do to manipulate her son Henry VII onto the throne. I think the marriage between Henry VII and Elizabeth of York was a definite political decision, the one that combined the Roses into the Tudor rose--not too shabby considering that the Tudor line began with a morgantic marriage between a foreign English queen with no claim to the throne and a Welsh commoner. But the Beaufort strain, coming as it did through John of Gaunt and Katharine Swinford (his long-time mistress and third wife) had a pseudo-legitimate claim after John of Gaunt legitimized them all. Henry VII was a political machine, especially in the early days with his mother's help. Naming his eldest son Arthur was an exquisite political ploy, harkening back to a day when a young King united all of England under a single throne.

Cranky
01-04-2009, 11:40 PM
Behold!

http://www.richardiii.net/

Oh, man, another time suck! :D Thanks for the linky.

HeronW
01-05-2009, 01:39 AM
I vote for the wife who outlived him!

Alan Yee
01-05-2009, 01:42 AM
Oh, man, another time suck! :D Thanks for the linky.

I ain't clicking on it. I'll end up reading it all day. :D

scarletpeaches
01-05-2009, 01:44 AM
I vote for the wife who outlived him!

Two of them did!

Alan Yee
01-05-2009, 01:45 AM
Henry VIII was the rightful king of England, though not through his father. His mother had the stronger claim, that's assuming her two brothers really were dead - and I believe Richard III to be innocent of all accusations regarding that 'crime', but that's probably an entirely new topic itself.


I assume you know that that's covered in another Weir book, The Princes in the Tower? Oh well, we probably shouldn't get into that here.

Alan Yee
01-05-2009, 01:49 AM
Two of them did!

Correcto! Anne of Cleves--the one who was only married to Henry for six months--actually survived Katherine Parr. Katherine Parr died in 1548 shortly after giving birth to her daughter by Thomas Seymour, while Anne of Cleves died in 1557. She's actually pretty lucky, considering Henry said she looked like a horse when he met her and the fact that her marriage was Henry's shortest one. I mean, she got her own castle after the marriage was annulled.

scarletpeaches
01-05-2009, 01:50 AM
I assume you know that that's covered in another Weir book, The Princes in the Tower? Oh well, we probably shouldn't get into that here.

Yeah. And I'm staying the hell away from that piece of crap myself.

Alison Weir is to historical investigation what Patricia Cornwell is to Jack the Ripper. She's another one who fits the 'facts' around her chosen suspect and ignores evidence to the contrary.

Her timelines for the Princes book are all out of whack, she attributes certain words and actions to the wrong people and she has the cheek to start off by claiming to be arbitrary! What a load of old wank. She started off by deciding Richard was guilty and fit the entire book around it.

How the hell Weir gets away with calling herself a historian God only knows. 99% of her work is fiction and the other 1% is shite.

/rant off.

*mumblemumble*

You're far, far better off reading Bertram Fields' Royal Blood (http://www.amazon.com/Royal-Blood-Richard-Mystery-Princes/dp/0750925450/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231105717&sr=1-2).

scarletpeaches
01-05-2009, 01:51 AM
Correcto!

Well duh. I know my shit. :D

StevenJ
01-05-2009, 01:54 AM
An Amazon review of Alison Weir's The Princes in the Tower:

Alison Weir's barely concealed antipathy towards Richard III ruins this book. I felt that I had no choice other to agree with Ms Weir that Richard III was a crouch-backed monster who was definitely the one who murdered the boys, and had no right to be presented with the facts and free to make up my own mind. I barely finished it. I wanted to read history, not venom-spitting.

scarletpeaches
01-05-2009, 01:58 AM
It's crazy that I get so riled about that woman, but I have a strong sense of justice and I have to stand up for what I believe in, even if the man in question has been dead for 524 years.

So yeah, I sounded angry in my previous post. I was. Am. But there you go.

Viva Ricardus Tertius!

Alan Yee
01-05-2009, 02:03 AM
No one seems to like Katherine Howard. Henry couldn't get it up in the sack anymore, so she sleeps with her old lovers and gets her head chopped off. Did she do anything else besides that?

scarletpeaches
01-05-2009, 02:07 AM
I always want to defend her. She was no more than 19 when she died and probably lived a life of promiscuity because she knew no better. She had been used sexually by a number of men all her life and probably thought this was how you got love.

Bear in mind she was raised outwith the traditional family home and slept in a ladies' dormitory where all sorts went on. She grew up surrounded by casual sex and then died for acting in the only way she knew how.

I say she deserves sympathy rather than condemnation. She died when she was little more than a child. 19? Possibly even 17.

mscelina
01-05-2009, 02:26 AM
There are indications that she was only 15 when she married the King. You have to feel sorry for Katharine Howard because she was the only one of the wives who probably didn't have a single farthing of a clue as to what was going on or how dangerous the road was that she took.

scarletpeaches
01-05-2009, 02:27 AM
Indeed.

Your signature is probably longer than her life was. :eek:

mscelina
01-05-2009, 02:29 AM
LOL--the signature will shrink when I lose, as I invariably do.

StevenJ
01-05-2009, 02:37 AM
History is unfair - if there was any justice, Henry would be seen as a villain, as Richard III mistakenly is.

mscelina
01-05-2009, 02:44 AM
I think Henry is seen as a villain in many ways,and rightfully so, but I think Richard III's reputation is somewhat justified as well. Usurpers to the throne usually get bad press. Yeah, I know--the Queen was a witch yada yada yada, but all it took for Richard to seize power was a paranoid woman and the ability to move the Princes to the Tower for protection and voila! We have us a bad guy. Was he all bad? Nah. Politics were just a lot more brutal back then and England was definitely not in a good position for a child on the throne at the time.

I'm sure he was able to justify the Princes' murders quite easily when thinking that way.

Henry got away with his crimes because the English people clung to the memory of merry Prince Hal when faced with the turmoil that his death would invariably bring. It's telling that only Anne Boleyn's daughter had the stamina--and intellectual capacity--to survive not only her childhood but the throne itself.

scarletpeaches
01-05-2009, 02:48 AM
There's no way he murdered the princes. Henry VII had more reason (and opportunity) to kill them.

Susan Breen
01-05-2009, 03:00 AM
I hate to even ask, but did you ever read that Josephine Fey book about Richard III?
And I am still convinced that there is something to be learned about characterization from reading Alison Weir's book.

scarletpeaches
01-05-2009, 03:13 AM
Daughter of Time? Never found it in any bookstores; I'll have to ask Borders or Waterstone's to order it in for me if I ever want to read it.

And this won't surprise you but I believe the only thing to be learned from Alison Weir's books is how to write a one-sided account of pseudo-history based on prejudice and opinion rather than cold, hard facts.