This was decent and interesting. I'm more familiar with her sister Alix.This was decent and interesting. I'm more familiar with her sister Alix....more
This was interesting. I'm not well versed enough on the history 9f this period to judge the accuracy of the history offered in this text. This is a quicThis was interesting. I'm not well versed enough on the history 9f this period to judge the accuracy of the history offered in this text. This is a quick, interesting, and light historical book....more
This was easily accessible to lay readers of history. This was reasonably paced and quite interesting. The reader is expected to know the basic BritishThis was easily accessible to lay readers of history. This was reasonably paced and quite interesting. The reader is expected to know the basic British monarchy or they might be a bit lost in this text....more
I quite liked this. It was thoroughly researched, very readable/accessible for lay readers of history. I felt that Baker took a somewhat royalist view I quite liked this. It was thoroughly researched, very readable/accessible for lay readers of history. I felt that Baker took a somewhat royalist view of Eleanor & Simon de Montfort. I think that bias, not really bias, more attitude impacted how he views her. There's a time after which, after more than a decade of thoughtless treatment by Henry III, Eleanor de Montfort can hold up a Treaty with King Louis in exchange for her tardy dowry payments. The author implies this was wrong of Eleanor de Montfort, but I don't agree. It's not Eleanor de Montfort's fault that Henry was perpetually broke. Henry found lands & money for their de Lusignan siblings, Eleanor de Montfort was within her rights to demand the same. She'd already tried asking nicely repeatedly. Her efforts were valid. It's weird because Baker seems to recognize that historical sexism has colored the public memory of Eleanor of Provence. So it was somewhat frustrating that he was unable to see Eleanor de Montfort's viewpoint given her biography made up half of this book. Perhaps this is just a view of biographers choosing a side, like modern biographers of Catherine of Aragon or Anne Boleyn who weirdly feel like they need, in modern times, to take a side in the women's dispute. It's weird because the dispute was between Henry VIII & Catherine of Aragon and later between Henry VIII & Anne Boleyn. There was no formal conflict between Catherine of Aragon & Anne Boleyn, I digress.
I removed a star because of awkward phrasing surrounding antisemitism in Henry III & Eleanor of Provence's Court.
There's an incident at the very end of chapter 6 in which a child's body is found dead in a well. The child's mother claims that Jewish folks ritually sacrificed her Christian child. This is a very common antisemitic claim during this time period. There's been no evidence in historical studies that there ever existed a group of Jewish folks that ritually sacrificed christian's nor their kids. This is just how antisemitism operated in society at that time. No doubt the boy was murdered and given what we know in modern times and understand about crime, it was possibly someone in his own family, almost certainly someone in his own community. Violence like this tends to fall along intra-community lines. Often ostracized and deeply oppressed communities are blamed due to bias in the dominant community in situations like this. It still happens today, which is why immigration is such a hot-button political issue. Statistically, very little crime is committed by immigrants, but that's not how society chooses to look at these relationships. Instead, the author chooses to act like, from this great distance, we can't possibly know what occurred. This is true but leaves the impression that Jewish folks might have ritually murdered christian children. I'm sure the author isn't himself antisemitic and I'm sure he meant no offense. Still, words matter, and it's incumbent on current historians to speak respectfully and carefully in regards to historically oppressed communities. Most of those communities are today still battling the long term impact of these oppressive policies. For me, that includes giving historical context to biased claims. With just a few simple sentences he could clear up that this practice wasn't a real concern which acts to bolster the modern communities claims of the same. Small changes can have large and far reaching impact....more
This book pretends that virginity is a 'gender' rather than a social construct which seems to belittle actual transgender people who existed in this tThis book pretends that virginity is a 'gender' rather than a social construct which seems to belittle actual transgender people who existed in this time as in every time. Gender is also a social construct but not in the same way; virginity was used in this instance, like costuming. Elizabeth I wasn't a virgin, she cloaked herself in 'virginity' biblical style to rule over a misogynistic and patriarchal Court. Much like Henry VIII wasn't actually a man of deep faith with a troubled conscience much less a protestant. No, he cloaked himself in faith to manipulate the Court for his many divorces and remarriages. Certainly Elizabeth I's manipulation of 'virginity' is ingenious where Henry was just a murdering pig. None the less I don't understand why not a thorough exploration of virginity and how this is mythologized in the form of the virgin Mary. A 'virgin' who gets pregnant and gives birth. Which is impossible as is the entire bullshit idea that a penis being inserted in a vagina changes anything. For either party. The lowest point for me is the author's disregard of blatant racism which occurs more than 100 yrs after the chattel slave trade has started. Ignore that the pope and europe have deemed black skin to equal enslaved person. No this wasn't ingrained in law, that won't be for a further 70 years but the concept existed. The author admits both that the concept exists and that she has been warned this can't be removed from it's colonial context. Yet the author proceeds to do just that. Here's the thing racism against black skin is still a thing. The idea that black skin is 'dirty' and can be 'cleaned' is still alive and active today. Not long ago a Chinese commercial with just this plot was broadcast and may still be broadcast. England and it's colonialism is responsible for the concept that 'white' people exist and legislated them into existence. To ignore this to pretend that being black is like being a foreigner is wildly inaccurate and disrespectful. This book is supposed to be a feminist look at these issues. Feminism has to address racism, even when it's uncomfortable and inconvenient. To fail to do so is to engage in racism which is what this author ultimately does. White feminism devalues to feminist movement as a whole.
Merged review:
This book pretends that virginity is a 'gender' rather than a social construct which seems to belittle actual transgender people who existed in this time as in every time. Gender is also a social construct but not in the same way; virginity was used in this instance, like costuming. Elizabeth I wasn't a virgin, she cloaked herself in 'virginity' biblical style to rule over a misogynistic and patriarchal Court. Much like Henry VIII wasn't actually a man of deep faith with a troubled conscience much less a protestant. No, he cloaked himself in faith to manipulate the Court for his many divorces and remarriages. Certainly Elizabeth I's manipulation of 'virginity' is ingenious where Henry was just a murdering pig. None the less I don't understand why not a thorough exploration of virginity and how this is mythologized in the form of the virgin Mary. A 'virgin' who gets pregnant and gives birth. Which is impossible as is the entire bullshit idea that a penis being inserted in a vagina changes anything. For either party. The lowest point for me is the author's disregard of blatant racism which occurs more than 100 yrs after the chattel slave trade has started. Ignore that the pope and europe have deemed black skin to equal enslaved person. No this wasn't ingrained in law, that won't be for a further 70 years but the concept existed. The author admits both that the concept exists and that she has been warned this can't be removed from it's colonial context. Yet the author proceeds to do just that. Here's the thing racism against black skin is still a thing. The idea that black skin is 'dirty' and can be 'cleaned' is still alive and active today. Not long ago a Chinese commercial with just this plot was broadcast and may still be broadcast. England and it's colonialism is responsible for the concept that 'white' people exist and legislated them into existence. To ignore this to pretend that being black is like being a foreigner is wildly inaccurate and disrespectful. This book is supposed to be a feminist look at these issues. Feminism has to address racism, even when it's uncomfortable and inconvenient. To fail to do so is to engage in racism which is what this author ultimately does. White feminism devalues to feminist movement as a whole....more
This is boring and weighted down in unbelievably small minutiae. This is primarily about the late QEII's death & funeral protocol combined with the latThis is boring and weighted down in unbelievably small minutiae. This is primarily about the late QEII's death & funeral protocol combined with the late QEII's coronation in comparison with KCIII's coronation and first state visit, hosting foreign dignitaries, etc in painfully minuscule detail. This book takes unneeded swipes at Harry & Meghan almost just so there will be viral worthy quotes in an effort to boost sales on what is a dismally boring book. This touched on the 'Court' of the late QEII & KCIII briefly and to shallow effect....more
This isn't half bad. Mostly accurate info. Slightly boring. Both men are treated like embarrassing specimens of an outdated and unnecessary institution. TThis isn't half bad. Mostly accurate info. Slightly boring. Both men are treated like embarrassing specimens of an outdated and unnecessary institution. This isn't really royalist in tone....more
The author has an issue with presenting full facts on Meghan & Harry.
It's weird.
The perfume in the chapel was also used by Kate in her wedThis is ok.
The author has an issue with presenting full facts on Meghan & Harry.
It's weird.
The perfume in the chapel was also used by Kate in her wedding to William.
There exists history of working Royal Family members: Andrew worked as a kinda Ambassador though he was also illegally dealing arms, William worked as a rescue pilot, Prince Edward's wife, Sophie worked until her gaffe caught on hit mic berating the royal family.
What Meghan & Harry were asking for wasn't new. It was traditional, the Firm simply didnt want them to work.
Only the racism that Meghan first faces as a new girlfriend is covered.
Now the author does point out that the public has an anger for Meghan doing the same thing as Kate, for example touching her baby bump.
Still it ignores much of what The Sussexes have themselves discussed in interviews and by Harry in Spare.
The author chooses to use primarily British sources, ignoring British papers bias towards Meghan and while Afua Hirsh is quoted its very limited.
In addition some of the info is just incorrect. For instance both Harry & Meghan still retain their HRH titles formally, they are forbidden from using them.
Entirely ignored is Harry's own explanation of what The Sandringham Summit entailed and how they were not given choices.
She uses the tired sexist 'megexit' talking points and ignores that couple have themselves given more insight into what happened.
I find it weird that the only first person narrative is largely ignored in favor of tabloid fodder.
Either way theres reslly nothing new here and this reads as a boring money grab by a relatively unknown reporter.
I pirated this and am truly glad I did.
I am not a royalist and I don't support monarchy. I find monarchy to a bullshit, oppressive, archaic institution and in Britain as in most of Europe, racist as fuck.
That said Meghan was fine with that until she found that her kids would be excluded from the benefits, then and only then did she get upset.
My concern is the ignoring of blatant fucking racism inorder to prop up a biased and bullshit institution.
Its frustrating that folks just ignore the racism. Otherwise in most ways I dont care.
Meghan & Harry are rich and they'll be fine.
I'm gona assume this reporter is conservative. In the states most folks who hate Meghan also watch Faux News and think chump won the election in 2020.
She continually refers to folks who had antiracist views as 'woke' but fails correctly identify conservatives as racist. Its frustrating because she carefully never defines 'woke' as most conservatives refuse to do as well.
She utterly ignores the vitriol online, that both Meghan & Archie were called the n-word on royal sites, comments that can still be viewed on royal social media. The racism was measured and reviewed undoubtably covering how Meghan is viewed.
I hate the author treats antiracism work as a 'culture war' vs holding racists responsible for their fucked up views.
I'd give the actual narrative 1 star, too many inaccuracies for my tastes.
However the audiobook used voice clips from interviews and it was really nice. So I weighed that in my overall score....more
This was edited because pro-royal supporters of white supremacy are complaining to Goodreads which did temporarily lock this review.
My updated review This was edited because pro-royal supporters of white supremacy are complaining to Goodreads which did temporarily lock this review.
My updated review as of 12/6/23: This is balanced, mostly kind, and honestly fair. The Royal Family is a publicly funded institution. Folks have a right to opinions and critiques.
Scobie was kinder and more diplomatic than I'd have tried to be.
CIII is a grumpy and unimportant monarch who mostly acts as a bridge between the late QEII & the future William V. I think Charles' scant meaningful time on the throne has shaped and driven his policies and modus operandi.
William does have a terrible temper, and Kate was called a lazy royal by the same British papers, now crying foul. I think it's nice that Kate focuses primarily on their kids. More royals need to do that. She has grown into the job, but 'palace sources' claimed to the press that she wasn't as prepared as Meghan. I also love that Scobie called out Kate changing her dress and style to copy Meghan. It's very obvious. Wills & Kate did all they could to make Meghan suicidal while she was pregnant with their nephew and then promptly copied her style. Fucking ass clowns the pair of them.
This book is very current & relevant. The issues raised are important and fair. The BRF has treated their own horribly: Diana, Fergie, Harry, Meghan, etc.
The comparison between how CIII treats his non-working royal pedophile brother, Andy, and his non-working royal son reflects his character or lack thereof. He won't pay for security for his own grandkids who were under terrible threats of violence, unmatched by any experiences being visited on Will & Kate's kids but will pay for his brothers security....more
I can not recommend this book. A better book dealing with Queen Caroline of Ansbach is King George II & Queen Caroline by John van der Kiste. The authorI can not recommend this book. A better book dealing with Queen Caroline of Ansbach is King George II & Queen Caroline by John van der Kiste. The author forms a hypothesis that Queen Caroline of Ansbach was similar to Maggie Thatcher, only the facts don't really support this thesis and so the author bends the facts to fit his hypothesis. The author is incredibly sexist and obsessed with this deceased Queens breasts in a distracting and obnoxious manner. I don't know why those comments weren't edited out. What a farce.
Merged review:
I can not recommend this book. A better book dealing with Queen Caroline of Ansbach is King George II & Queen Caroline by John van der Kiste. The author forms a hypothesis that Queen Caroline of Ansbach was similar to Maggie Thatcher, only the facts don't really support this thesis and so the author bends the facts to fit his hypothesis. The author is incredibly sexist and obsessed with this deceased Queens breasts in a distracting and obnoxious manner. I don't know why those comments weren't edited out. What a farce....more
I know little of this time period, so I can't vouch for the accuracy of this text, but it aligns with what I do know of this time period. This is a tinI know little of this time period, so I can't vouch for the accuracy of this text, but it aligns with what I do know of this time period. This is a tiny bit dry and I think could've been shorter. George IV was a turd of epic proportions. ...more
3.75 stars rounded up This is a well researched history of The Lancaster 's. This ends a few decades before the start of the War of the Roses. I liked th3.75 stars rounded up This is a well researched history of The Lancaster 's. This ends a few decades before the start of the War of the Roses. I liked this but it is mislabeled. This isn't as lay reader friendly as usual with this author's books....more
4 solid stars! This was interesting and informative. I know little about this period so I'm unsure of the accuracy. That said what was offered matched w4 solid stars! This was interesting and informative. I know little about this period so I'm unsure of the accuracy. That said what was offered matched what little I know....more
4.5 Stars Rounded up This was well researched, well written, interesting, and easily accessible to casual readers of history. This does presume the read4.5 Stars Rounded up This was well researched, well written, interesting, and easily accessible to casual readers of history. This does presume the reader is familiar with the players of this time period....more
This is just a boring and confusing read. I'm familiar with the history this covers and still felt fucking confused with how this jumped2.5 rounded up
This is just a boring and confusing read. I'm familiar with the history this covers and still felt fucking confused with how this jumped all over the place. It's not just about the houses and that plot is lost a bit in the narrative.
Also this attempts to excuse chattel slavery under the guise of, "we can't judge the past using the values of the present" but that's not true. Slavery was always wrong and Europeans knew that during the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade but created that trade anyway. Further the reason the past is important in this instance and all instances is because the past informs the present. Most chocolate consumed today is grown in West Africa using modern slavery. Most critical parts for cell phones also use modern day slavery of marginalized peoples on colonized and formerly colonized lands However, if you see who's currently profiting off of these practices today, you'll find that in most cases, they are the descendants of those same families that profited off of chattel slavery back in the day. So it becomes clear both why this information is paramount AND why the common refrain from academia is to pretend that history is isolated from the present. No the fuck it's not. When we excuse slavery of the past we also excuse slavery of the present. When we judge the people of the past that works to stop the same behavior from occurring in modern society.
Stop looking for ways to excuse these folks, let's hold them accountable instead. The world sucks balls, and excusing inexcusable behaviors is part and parcel of why....more
This is a somewhat hostile biography of Anne Boleyn. The author chooses to use mostly Chapuys as a source for Anne and decides to present her in his vThis is a somewhat hostile biography of Anne Boleyn. The author chooses to use mostly Chapuys as a source for Anne and decides to present her in his view. It's uncomfortable. Anne is regularly referred to as a concubine after her marriage to Henry, and Elizabeth is often called the bastard during her parents' actual marriage. It's bizarrely hostile.
Of what value is a biography of Anne Boleyn that stresses Katherine of Aragon & Mary Tudor's point of view???
This is beyond a balanced look.
The author passes the usual sexist nonsense about Anne Boleyn but packages it ludicrously as if Anne was a 'modern' feminist.
I find it weird that a modern view is that Anne simply should've given up her future as a wife to be a mistress to Henry VIII out of misplaced loyalty to Katherine of Aragon. It's just a silly opinion.
Anne was within her rights to refuse to sleep with the same King who fucked her sister. It's just ridiculous to suggest otherwise.
People outside of a marriage do not need to prioritize or respect another couples marriage. They are free to make choices that benefit them solely. To suggest otherwise is just childish.
Anne had no power to tell Henry to leave her alone and the history agrees she wanted to marry Henry Percy. She made lemonade out of the lemons Henry gave her.
Anne is blamed for Henry's own behavior towards and treatment of both Katherine of Aragon & Mary Tudor. Which is bullshit. Henry was an ass to Mary after he murdered Anne. So clearly Anne wasn't influencing him from her grave. Henry murdered Margaret Pole and her whole family in a fit of horrible pique. She was his mothers cousin and friend. She was involved in raising him. He murdered her children and grandchildren, tried to genocide her whole family. He is sick as fuck and I hate that Anne has somehow more responsible for Henry being unfaithful than he's held accountable for.
It's basically told from Katherine & Mary's pov until Henry dies.
Then Mary is increasingly marginalized in favor of Elizabeth I's great rise.
Meh. This is a biased and limited view of these dynamic women.
I found much of the ways Elizabeth carried her mother into her adult life touching. At the same time this author is so biased I don't completely trust her narrative...more
This was very easy to read as a casual historian. This was very well researched and sited. This is a fun way to learn a very condensed version of ScottThis was very easy to read as a casual historian. This was very well researched and sited. This is a fun way to learn a very condensed version of Scottish Royal history....more
Loading...
