An honest and balanced perspective on Richard III
920629
Loyalty is one of the most believable novels about Richard III I've ever read. As an avid amateur medieval historian and writer of historical fiction, I have read many works about Richard III, and I have often been disappointed in the clear biases of authors who paint Richard as all bad or all good. Matthew Lewis, on the other hand, has taken a more balanced approach, revealing a man of extraordinary ability and loyalty to his people who, in another time, could have eclipsed many monarchs. Had circumstances surrounding Richard been different, who knows what might have been. Lewis also shows the reader a fallible, fiery tempered man beset by personal insecurities and dogged by tragedy who made wrong choices, but for the best of reasons.

Beautifully written, factual as far as can ever be known, and completely believable to Ricardian scholars and enthusiasts who believe the balanced perspective is more accurate than either extreme. A book to be read more than once and remembered long after you've closed the cover. A masterful job, Matthew Lewis. Thank you!
1080455
Michael A. R. Graves is one of the leading authorities on Elizabethan parliaments, so one might expect his book on the leading Elizabethan statesman to be good.  And in many ways it is.  Wide-ranging and erudite,  in easily-digested short segments concerning various modules of William  Cecil's career, 'Burghley' offers an excellent if condensed overview of the  achievements of Elizabeth I's chief adviser.  Unlike earlier books on the  subject, 'Burghley' does not pursue every minute (and often unnecessary)  aspect of his career.  However, during some sections of the book, Graves'  love for the minutiae of politics and economics becomes apparent, although  regrettably is not likewise communicated to the reader.  The final chapter  is therefore extremely welcome and useful, containing a subjective but  learned analysis of Burghley the man.  The sheer vastness of Burghley's  surviving documentation makes the task of his biographer an incredibly  daunting one, and in my opinion, Graves has done a commendable job.  Although not recommended for the casual reader with a passing interest in  Burghley's life, the book is excellently suited to students of Elizabethan  politics, for whom it was clearly written.  For the purpose of last-minute  cramming or essay research, this slim volume is a welcome and detailed  alternative to the considerably thicker, more in-depth tomes of Hume, Read,  Beckingsale, et al.
4473936
As always, Judith gave us a novel that is easy and fun to read. There's a lot to like about this Anne Boleyn, and she is very sympathetic. The author writes from the perspective that Anne's reputation has been blackened by her all-too-numerous detractors; who would possibly speak up in her defense? So this is an attempt to set the record straight, so to speak, told by Anne herself.

The first person point-of-view is always interesting, but in many ways it's confining as well. After all, Anne isn't likely to say bad things about herself; like most of us, she probably doesn't see herself the way the world sees her. She might not think that she is peevish, or hot-tempered, or vindictive. As a result, she comes across as a nice gal who didn't know what hit her. Unfortunately, I think she was too nice; we didn't really see that feisty fiery vixen that must have exuded some strange sort of sex appeal. What was it about her that made King Henry turn the country upside-down in order to have her? We don't experience her exotic Frenchified behavior that raised so many eyebrows. Nor did it seem that she had any excessive antagonism toward Cardinal Wolsey, or even her predecessor Queen Katherine. She didn't celebrate Katherine's death; her actions were misinterpreted, as well as her yellow dress.

I'm sure this toned-down behavior is intentional, but I think it takes much of the spice out of the story. If Anne was sweet and even-tempered, why did Henry go to such lengths to get rid of her? The explanation has much to do with her opposition to Cromwell's policy of dissolution; apparently Cromwell's one-man crusade against the Queen entangled the King in her ruin. Her fall was swift and inexorable. I'm just not sure it was convincing.

Nonetheless, it's refreshing to read yet another Anne Boleyn story from a different angle. Perhaps the author is right and Anne has been misjudged by centuries of credulous historians. It's easy to perpetuate a fascinating myth. It's not so easy to dismantle it, and Judith shows us an entertaining alternative.
4809061
I thought this book was well written and very informative plus a love story between King Richard III and Queen Anne. It was refreshing considering Shakespeare's portrayal of King Richard and I definitely recommend it.
1528613
I enjoyed this book very much.

It took me a while to get used to the style of the author, who like any good academic historian, is thoroughly familiar with all original sources, and frequently quotes them to good effect, rather in the manner David Frost used to use on his Sunday morning programme reviewing the day's papers.  Depending on how interested the reader is in the matter at hand this can be a little tedious, or utterly gripping.

At times, especially in an early chapter on Aquitaine, the author gets slightly carried away with his enjoyment of the ambience of his sources.  My favourite is a guidebook for pilgrims in which the information about the habits of the people of different regions might be thought prejudiced.

Mr Gillingham's task is to rescue the real Richard from the very contrasting opinions of historians over the centuries.  Richard was a hero for several hundred years, and rather a scoundrel more recently, in the eyes of learned historians.  Gillingham begins by surveying the different views and then moves on to his story.

The story falls into four parts:

1) Richard's early years, including from the age of fifteen on his rulership of Aquitaine, including more than one period where he was at war with his father, Henry II.

2) When he became King, he spent a year or so sorting things out in France and England and then departed for the Third Crusade, in which he played, to say the least, the leading role on the Western side.  He won every battle he undertook both on the way and while in Palestine, which is not to say that he didn't pick his battles, and the timing of them very carefully.

3)  On the way home Richard was shipwrecked, and owing to a propoganda hatchet job done on him by Philip of France and Leopold of Austria, both of whom had been humiliated by Richard, not out of spite but because their incompetence showed up too much against the glory of Richard's achievements, he then found it  impossible to make it home overland and ended up a prisoner of the Holy Roman Emperor.

It took him a couple of years, a vast amount of money, and the inconvenience of having his brother John giving away huge chunks of his French possessions to the French king in the meantime, before he was released.

4)  Richard then had four or five years of slowly and painfully putting everything back together in France until he was killed by a sharpshooter.  Then John acceded to the throne, and promptly gave away his French possessions all over again.

To me Richard comes over as a one off, a monarch unlike any other who ever sat on the English throne.  He courage and ability at war were phenomenal.  His judgment was unfailing.  He was decisive, and could be brutal, but I felt from my reading that this was never because he lost his temper, or out of desperation, it was to administer justice, or necessary to achieve a greater goal.  He was widely admired and respected by his contemporaries, especially, as is carefully documented here, by Saladin and his cohorts.

The story is well, and memorably told.
1437828
A great read in view of the recent discovery of Richard III's bones.  Here you get the TRUE story of a much mailigned king, mostly courtesy of the Tudors who were more than an anxious to  bury the Plantagenets forever.
1324206
Sharon K. Penman does her research. She doesn't describe the gowns the women are wearing, or go heavy into romance, she describes the realities of returning from an unsuccessful Crusade, the cultural impact on those who served in the sieges and the respect for their Saracen opponents, the trauma of travel in the Mediterranean during stormy winter months, and the political realities King Richard the Lionheart had to deal with day by day, minute by minute.

He was an extraordinary man, but a man who could never stop thinking about his next move, his next war, his many opponents, and those who coveted his crown. Penman doesn't romanticize, but she makes all her characters living, breathing people, people in their true context. It may not be as much fun as Philippa Gregory, but it has a greater feel of the times.
3192732
I like that the author clearly stated his positions, argued them effectively, and wasn't afraid to cut through the many layers of unmerited Anne Boelyn worship. The author did well with sourcing and tying the many varied strands of Cromwell, Henry, Anne, Gardiner, Wolesey, and others into a clear and powerful historical narrative. You'll enjoy this book!
4793667
Ackroyd has both a scholar's hand at research and a skilled novelist's voice. The former skill-set in particular must have been taxed in writing this book- Shakespeare left frustratingly few direct records behind him, and much of his life needs to be reconstructed from context and circumstantial evidence, with a judicious amount of extrapolation.

The latter facet is one of the few areas in which I have any quibbles. Ackroyd sometimes goes a bit too far in my book, especially in divining Shakespeare's motivations and personality in ways that don't seem far different from wild speculation. However, this doesn't happen often enough to ruin the portrait he paints. Speaking of portraits, Ackroyd seems to somewhat arbitrarily decide which of several possible Shakespeare portraits are genuine (or not), seemingly mostly on the basis of how well they support his image of the man. I also find his reasons for using original spelling in his quotes to be less than compelling- it smacked of pretence rather than of authenticity. But once again, hardly a great fault.

I'm sure this one will annoy the anti-Stratfordians- although Ackroyd hardly mentions the controversy directly, he handily demolishes a number of the elitist arguments against the Stratfordian position, and convincingly demonstrates that Shakespeare had access to all of the source material he needed (and the knowledge to use it) in order to write his plays. No smoking gun- and there may never be one- but still solid, in my book.

But no matter who wrote the plays, Ackroyd paints a compelling picture of the world in which they were performed. England in those days was a place of great energy and enthusiasm, but also of paranoia. Crypto-Catholic plotting, political maneuvering, the burgeoining frontiers of the New World and the unrest in Europe... he shows the reader a marvellous and convoluted world, fascinating and dangerous. One can easily see how this energy (both dark and light) entered into the plays.

I can wholeheartedly recommend this book for anyone who is interested either in William Shakespeare or the world of Elizabethan England.
3536231
Philip Eade's biography of the early life of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, treads a careful middle ground. It is authoritative, but isn't magisterial and academic in scope. Although avoiding being syncophantic and including much that would displease the Royal family, this isn't tabloid fare either. Overall, Eade's journalistic background shows in careful sourcing and a well-balanced approach. I particularly appreciate that Eade didn't indulge in the amateurish psychoanalysis which pervades biographical work these days. This highly readable and enjoyable result covers matters from Philip's family background - none of whom were actually Greek - to Elizabeth II's coronation.

Eade's eye for the telling detail brings humanity and affecting life to people and times, most often frozen in black and white photographs. His grandfather's (George I of Greece, b. 1845) family in Denmark was bumptious and informal, apt to "make funny noises and yell if they saw anyone trying to write a letter." George I had such a tendency of rocking up onto his toes, that a visitor had to fight the hypnotic temptation to imitate him. At the time George had been invited as monarch, Greece had undergone 42 changes in government in 25 years. Meeting with his cabinet, his watch and inkstand were stolen while his back was turned. Such chaotic politics doomed the efforts of subsequent monarchs such as Philip's father, Andrea (or Andrew), to rule effectively. (It also illuminates present era upheavals in Greece!) Andrea had to flee the country to avoid possible execution. His family hastily joined him with a few belongings after burning papers and letters. Toddler Philip slept in a fruit crate as the ship took them to exile in France.

Eade also details Philip's years at Gordonstoun, where he was a solid student, whose chief faults were intolerance and impatience, but he did not "know what boredom is" when intent on discharging his duties. It was there that his lifelong love affair with the sea and sailing developed. From there, he went on to a decorated career in the Royal Navy during WWII. I was particularly taken with the tale of how he ordered a raft with smoking pots to be set adrift as a decoy, helping his ship to float away and avoid a fatal nighttime air attack. There are touches of humor, too. During the Coronation rehearsal, the Duke of Norfolk cried, "If the bishops don't learn to walk in step, we'll be here all night." Noel Coward identified a tiny Sultan, riding in an open carriage next to the huge Queen of Tonga as "Her Lunch."

Most moving to me were those glimpses of human emotion behind the Royal masks. George VI's great love for his daughter is so palpably evident. He was near tears when they signed the marriage register, saying "It is a far more moving thing to give away your daughter than to be married yourself." Philip's willing sacrifice to marry Elizabeth, renouncing his titles, religion and even family - his sisters, married to German nobility, were not allowed to attend his wedding. How hurtful, then, that it was decreed that the family would continue to styled the House of Windsor. Philip noted that he was only man in England who couldn't pass his own name onto his children. While I would have appreciated more explication placing Philip's early life into context with what occurred later, this detracted little from the book. (  )
1043695
An interesting view of the life of Richard III. Though I have read many books about the participants in the War of the Roses, I had never read anything about the early life of Richard. Even though it is a novel, it is still a good book. I am one who does not believe he was a hunchback as Shakespeare portrays him. The Tudors wanted to destroy any good feelings for the Yorks after they became rulers. Philippa Gregory's series give a good look at the women of the time. I enjoyed this one.
2764643
This is a well written and very balanced book, on a very interesting king.  It is rare to find a biography which is so balanced.
4527140
Carpenter's survey of post-Conquest Britain somehow manages to be both very detailed and very broad.  As expected, he focuses mainly on the political and religious aspects of the period, but he is careful to include social history (including discussions of slavery, the peasantry, queenship and chivalry)where it impinges on those subjects. The result is magnificently clear narrative of this complicated and turbulent era. Four chapters of purely social history round out the story: two at the beginning discuss the peoples and economy of Britain, and two near the end summarize "The Structures of Society" and the "Church, Religion, Literacy, and Learning."  Within the main body of the text he provides short overviews of Welsh and Scots power structures and history.  These are especially welcome additions, and though he generally includes only the details that help make sense of Anglo-Norman actions, he writes these sections from a Welsh or Scottish perspective.

Surprisingly, the most gripping parts of the book concern subjects that might be thought dry. Carpenter excels at dealing with abstractions. His description of the legal system, which changed several times throughout the period and eventually gave rise to both common law and the Magna Carta, is actually thrilling. His discussions of the economy, feudal rights and obligations, and the importance of the castle to medieval politics are fascinating. Of course, all this comes at a price: he doesn't have room for much in the way of anecdote, and a few subjects that ought to make for exciting reading (the civil war between Stephen and Empress Matilda, the reign of Henry II)are a little flat. Sometimes, maddeningly, he refers to good stories (Matilda's daring escapes, "notorious" clerical crimes, the romantic intrigues of Nest, a Helen of Wales) and then refrains from telling them. Other chapters in history fare better; his coverage of William I, William Rufus, and Henry I was especially lively and satisfying. The small sacrifices he makes to narrative cleanliness don't detract from the work's readability; it's compelling throughout--it's just what's compelling that gets you.

There are a few more serious omissions, or rather near-omissions.  The crusades get little attention, and I would have liked to hear more about the major female players.  Still, he covers everything at least briefly--in itself a staggering achievement. In short, this is a thorough introduction to the period, an engrossing read, and a fine update on contemporary medieval scholarship.  Indispensable.
4349714
Ive had this book on my shelves for years, waiting for the right moment to tackle it. The moment has arrived! I am doing research on Richard II, and the Peasant Revolt is a great place to start. I certainly picked up the right book; Charles Oman has given a thorough explanation of this pivotal event all the way down to the tax rolls (in the appendix, fortunately). Like most armchair historians, I knew about Wat Tyler and the London riot. What I didn't know was that the Great Revolt extended through much of England and lasted a couple of weeks past the day Tyler was killed.

As for the revolt itself, we get a thorough description, as expected. We saw Richard's courage in approaching the rebels: "His position had been so much changed by the fall of London, that he was now forced to take the risk of being imprisoned or even murdered by the rebels, which had seemed unnecessary on the previous day." We saw the rioting in London and the fear of the authorities who stood helpless in the face of the insurgency. It was Richard alone who quelled the rebellion and sent many of the participants home. This was truly his greatest hour.

I always wondered about Richards reversal after he promised everything to the peasants: was he idealistic and later forced to recant by his uncles, or did he lie through his teeth to get out of a tight situation? Apparently, Oman thinks the king leaned toward the latter, and not without reason. Significantly, the famous line Villeins ye are still, and villeins ye shall remain did not come unprovoked. Richards proclamation was made after he marched to Waltham at the head of an army a week later to put down further insurrections; a new embassy of Essex insurgents had approached him with a demand for the ratification of the promises made at Mile End on June 14, and a request that they might be granted the additional privilege of freedom from the duty of attending the Kings courts The author adds: It is clear that the sentimental sympathy for the oppressed peasantry attributed to the young king by some modern authors had no real existence. He was incensed at the duress which he had suffered on June 14-15, and anxious to revenge himself. To me, this interpretation of Richards actions goes a long way toward defining who he really was. But at the same time, Richards courage was irrefutable and he alone saved the day. What might not have been hoped from a boy of fourteen capable of such an achievement, and who could have guessed that this gifted but wayward king was to wreck his own career and end as the miserable starved prisoner of Pontefract?

What I took away from this book was the understanding that conditions leading up to the Peasant Revolt were long-term and widespread. When taking a broad look, apparently the leaders of the revolt were not in communication with each other; the participants were reacting to the situation as the opportunities presented themselves (and not all of them were peasants). In the long run, things went on the same as before: If we had not the chronicles of Tylers rising, we should never have gathered from the court rolls of the manors that there had been an earth-shaking convulsion in 1381. But there was one tangible result; now the peasants had a new ideal to strive for. They cherished the charters of freedom and amnesty that were issued by the king, and although all Richards promises were broken, they knew it could be done. It was a sad and enlightening event, and I found this book to be most satisfying. I have attached a picture of the edition I read, Printed by Greenhill Books, London
1534539
In this delightful book, Shakespeare the Thinker, A. D. Nuttall seeks to defend the great playwright against those who view him as just a product of his time (a view that is a strong form of Historicism). I'm a huge fan of Stephen Greenblatt, who wrote the terrific biography&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/Will-in-the-World-How-Shakespeare-Became-Shakespeare/dp/039332737X/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">Will in the World: How Shakespeare Became Shakespeare</a>, so I was glad that Nuttall did not disagree with the nuanced New Historicism of Greenblatt and Pierre Bourdieu. Rather he agrees with them that Shakespeare interacted or "negotiated" with his milieu in a complex way, and that the "causation [was] a two-way street." Nuttall goes even further, asserting that "although knowledge of the historical genesis can on occasion illuminate a given work, the greater part of the artistic achievement of our best playwright is _internally_ generated" and that "[i]t is the product, not of his time, but of his own, unresting, creative intelligence."

Shakespeare the Thinker takes the form of a well-integrated commentary on the plays--almost too well integrated, as it is hard to find discussion of a particular play just by thumbing through the book. Several plays are discussed in each chapter, which the skimpy table of contents doesn't mention (my only real gripe with the book). In a way, this is good, because much is gained by reading the book, or at least a chapter, straight through. For instance, Romeo and Juliet is followed by A Midsummer Night's Dream, and Nuttall examines some common themes and how interpretation depends on which play one believes was written first.

Nuttall's new book probably won't replace Marjorie Garber's&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/Shakespeare-After-All/dp/0385722141/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">Shakespeare After All</a>, but will complement it. His synthesis provides a nice counterpoint to her fine-grained analysis; and his (sometimes elliptical) engagement with other critical works, to her careful culling of observations from such works.

Nuttall's writing is enjoyable, sprinkled with insightful references to modern pop culture--for example, Ian McEwan's Atonement, Wife Swap, Goodfellas, and Star Trek! He takes delight in language (and not just Shakespeare's), like when he's describing Katherina's response to Petruchio in the sun-moon exchange: "Turning his non-committal `say' into `know' exposes the lunacy of all this moonshine with solar clarity."

What shines through, most of all, is Nuttall's admiration of Shakespeare's intellect, encapsulated in his "law": "Whatever you think of, Shakespeare will have thought of first." Fellow admirers and students of the playwright will enjoy this excellent book.

Here is an expanded table of contents:
Ch. 1. To the Death of Marlowe
p. 25: Henry VI, parts 1-3
 45: Richard III
 56: The Comedy of Errors
 63: Two Gentlemen of Verona
 70: The Taming of the Shrew
 Comparison of Shakespeare and Marlowe.

2. Learning Not to Run
 87: Love's Labour's Lost (preceded by brief discussion of Titus Andronicus)
 99: Romeo and Juliet
 119: A Midsummer Night's Dream

3. The Major Histories
 133: Richard II
 150: Henry IV, parts 1 and 2; Henry V

4. Stoics and Sceptics
 171: Julius Caesar
 192: Hamlet
 205: Troilus and Cressida

5. Strong Women, Weaker Men
 221: Much Ado about Nothing
 226: As You Like It
 239: Twelfth Night
  247: All's Well That Ends Well

6. The Moralist
 255: The Merchant of Venice
 262: Measure for Measure

7. How Character May Be Formed
 277: Othello
 284: Macbeth
 290: Coriolanus

8. Shrinking and Growing
 300: King Lear
 312: Timon of Athens
 321: Antony and Cleopatra

9. The Last Plays
 333: Pericles and Cymbeline
 345: The Winter's Tale
 360: The Tempest
4427869
Franoise d'Aubign, Marquise de Maintenon and second unacknowledged wife of Louis XIV, wrote nearly eighty volumes of letters; more than four thousand have survived and Franoise Chandernagor has used them with skill and feeling to write this first-person account of Maintenon's life.  I enjoyed The King's Way very much - I knew very little about the life and loves of Louis XIV before reading it, and it proved to be a pleasant way to make this history memorable.  It is not difficult to keep the cast of characters straight until the very end, when one is dealing with the bastard descendants of Louis - then the numerous names and titles tend to blur.  The history is well handled, always through Mme. de Maintenon's eyes, which is quite credible since she was an intelligent, witty, and compassionate woman and her advice was sought by Louis, even though he did not often take it.

I will not summarize Maintenon's life here, since Kay Kirkpatrick has given an excellent summary in her recent Amazon review of Veronica Buckley's biography.  Chandernagor's book is more affordable and more available than Buckley's book, although if you read it, you may want to know more - I went searching for a history and found only Buckley's book listed, along with Antonia Fraser's more general book on all of Louis's loves.  Franoise d'Aubign was well-known as the most moral and devout of Louis's loves, but she is by no means a "plaster saint."  Chandernagor gives her a voice which is alternately witty, earnest, self-deprecating and proud of herself.  She's someone I would like to have known.  Neither of her husbands were easy marriage material.  Paul Scarron, the first, was an intelligent and arrogant cripple who gave her a base of sorts in Paris society, but left her disillusioned and cynical about the possibility of combining love and marriage.  Two subsequent affaires du coeur helped her realize that physical love could be enjoyable, but mocked her hope of marrying someone of higher rank than her own.  One rejoices with her as Louis chooses her for her real self, even as one groans that she will never be known as queen - she truly deserved it.

Some historians have accused her of encouraging Louis's revocation of the Edict of Nantes and thus condoning the persecution of Protestants.  On the contrary she was quite concerned about the situation of her own Protestant relatives who had been the first to show her any loving care as a child and who had introduced her to God.  Chandernagor presents her as much more tolerant than Louis and certainly not in favor of the forced conversions which followed the revocation, although she was not above cleverly luring her young Protestant relatives into the Church.  Although she felt a strong attraction to mysticism and contemplation, she was fundamentally a practical person who loved children and devoted much of her life to their education, as well as to improving the economic situation of the poor around her.  A woman of contradictions, she loved the wit of Paul Scarron's circle and her early life at Louis's court (Mme. de Montespan and Ninon de Lenclos, notorious for their immorality as well as their intelligence, were friends), although she tired of the banal superficiality of most of this society.  Similarly, she loved King Louis even as she couldn't stand his distanced controlling behavior and his insistence on leaving all the windows open even when she was freezing!  Seeing him through her eyes, the reader loves him too, but loves her even more for her honest ability to confront herself in her endless variety.
2633917
There is the air of settling things for once and for all in The Lady in the Tower, Alison Weir's third to extensively cover some aspect of Anne Boleyn's life. The subject for this biographical smack down is Anne's fall and the method is an exhaustive (and, yes, occasionally exhausting) comparison of the contemporary and near contemporary accounts of her arrest, trial and execution.

This goes well beyond "was she guilty" and extends to why was she accused, who stood to gain from her fall and even "what was she wearing at her execution". Of course, what Anne wore is not the point, Weir uses the conflicting accounts of the simple matter of whether Anne's hair was loose or in a net to show us how little these accounts agree upon.

Weir deserves praise for her willingness to draw conclusions and eliminate possibilities. Where another historian might hedge with "perhaps" and "probably" she's not afraid to weigh in with an "almost certainly. Nor is Weir afraid of a fight, calling out such fellow Tudor experts such as Eric Ives and Retha Warnicke when she disagrees. It's refreshing, frankly as is Weir's lack of fear in pronouncing the work of Joanna Denny wrong-headed at best. If at this point you're reading this wondering who on earth these people are then think twice about embarking on this book.

I've read nearly all of Weir's books so I feel safe in saying that this is the least accessible of her works. It is well written but because it starts shortly before Anne is arrested, the book provides little to no background on her. If you want an account of how Henry met Anne you'll need to look elsewhere. I'm a Tudorphile so I enjoyed this book. I've read most of the secondary sources discussed in the book which made Weir's assessment of say Retha Warnicke's theories all the more interesting.

This is not a book for someone new to the story of Anne Boleyn nor even for someone who simply knows the story of the second of Henry VIII's six wives. If you are very interested in Tudor history and Anne Boleyn in particular, however, you'll find this book interesting. Recommended for Tudorphiles but not novices.