Disclaimer: ARC via Netgalley.

                Do we really need another book about the Tudors?

                I’m not sure, but they do seem to be sparking quite the industry don’t they?

                Borman’s book is suppose to be about the private lives – not so much sex, though there is plenty of that- but of housekeeping and castle running.  In other words, how bodily functions were carried out, what make up was used, and, of course, the virginity of Elizabeth I.

                It is not a bad book, but it is hardly a book that someone who has already read books about the Henrys, Mary, Edward, and Elizabeth I needs to read.  The best sections are those were Borman really does focus on the private lives, such private lives that the kings and queens could have (which really wasn’t much).  In this case, it means discussing views about sex as well as herbs that could be used if one spent too much time with a woman.  There are detailed descriptions about royal wardrobes that are actually quite interesting, and make Henry VIII look even more of a bully.

                The book bogs down for the far from causal Tudor reader, when Borman retreads the well-known Tudor stories, and why she acknowledges this in her introduction, that doesn’t make the reading more fascinating for those readers who already know this.  What is interesting is that Borman follows the standard glossy over Edward and Mary (especially Mary) to make quick room for Elizabeth.  It’s hardly surprising; Elizabeth ruled far, far longer.  But it also feels as if she let go of a chance to do something different too easily.   Instead of dwelling for the length of time she does on say Mary, Queen of Scots perhaps more about Mary I of England. 

                It is not a bad book, but if you have read other Tudor histories, it isn’t going to bring much new to the table.  If you have just started reading about the Tudors, you should add this to your list.

(Counting it as a "Fall Into a Good Book" because there are a slew of people falling from power here.  Usually by losing their heads).

This is not a perfect book. The ending is a bit too much thrown at the reader too soon, and some of it doesn't really seem to have a point. The reader is told one too many times how perfect Joanna is, though in fairness the perfect is more moral and intelligence than looks (a nice change). Yet, I found myself enjoying the book. It's a step above The Other Boleyn Girl (anyone else crack up about PG's quest for historical accuracy in movies?). I found something likable about Joanna, perhaps because she found herself in situations that felt real. The most compelling part of the novel is the sequence in the Tower of London.

Decharne's highlights of murders in London is well chosen, and covers a wide variety of classes. Bonus points for not including Jack the Ripper. Each chapter chronicles a crime and even looks at how views to the victims and accused changed.

Disclaimer: ARC via Netgalley.

Ah the Tudors – a Showtime series made you hot all over again. Not that you ever lost the hotness, you understand.

And to be fair to Weir, she was writing about the Tudors long before Showtime got its idea, so she wins.

There are problems with books like this one. There are reasons why full length studies of Margaret Douglas (or Lennox) and Elizabeth of York are not often done. There really isn’t quite much information in terms the ladies themselves. This is more of a sign of the ladies’ times than anything else. Yet, it is true that every so often and historian finds something new about such a personage or presents a new theory that will get people to look at said women differently.

That really isn’t the case here.

This is not to say that Weir’s biography is a bad book; it isn’t. In some places, while not shedding new light on events, Weir moves them into the spotlight and presents the details in one place, something that is not usually done. Weir’s book, however, does fail into the pitfall that most other books about “lost” people fall into.

It’s less about the person and more events that surround that person.

At times, Margaret disappears for pages. This isn’t so surprise –after all she was Mary Queen of Scots’ mother-in-law, her mother was the queen of Scotland, her brother a king, her cousin a queen, and she was a woman living in a man’s world. It is too Weir’s credit that there is discussion and dissection of Margaret’s poetry as well as her early “love affairs”. There is a wonderful section about the symbolism of the Lennox jewel.

Yet, at times, the book is less about Margaret and more about the power politics that she lived with and in. Therefore, if you are a long time reader of Tudor biographies and histories, or even a long time reader of Weir (or Fraser) much of this book is, quite frankly, old hat. Furthermore, the reader comes away still with a vague idea of Margaret. It’s true that this image is better drawn then the power hungry woman that is often seen in connection Mary, Queen of Scots – an image that Weir never endorsed - , yet the Lost Tudor Princess is hardly found and is still less well known than those who shared the stage.

This isn’t Weir’s fault, but it is still the case. If you come to this book for a better look at Margaret Lennox, then you will be disappointed in some ways. If you come to this book because you are trying to complete your Weir reading list or because you enjoy Weir’s writing, you will not be disappointed – Weir’s writing is engaging as always -if one sided in some of her depictions.