Customer Reviews
a waste of money and time - By: Neta-lie Gross, 05 Nov 2008 
as a fanatical Tudur reader I exepected a lot from that book
but it is inaccurate & according to this book every one at Henry's court was a sex addict with a dirty mind & Jane Rochford was the worst.
botton line:if you love good historical fiction do not read this book
Interesting take on a maligned figure from history - By: Rachel, 25 Oct 2008 
While I have a lot of time for this retelling of Anne Boleyn & Katherine Howard's stories, from the perspective of a woman whose life & fate became inextricably intertwined with theirs, I note from the outset that it is by no means perfect. It certainly is not for everyone; there are aspects of it which some readers will find confronting, & others may well be bothered by the inaccuracies & liberties taken (I have at least one Tudor enthusiast friend who would definitely hate it for both reasons - I generally am only bothered by inaccuracies if they do not advance the plot, are too preposterous to be believed and/or if the author insists that his/her version is accurate). There are a number of errors & minor anachronisms, & several of the myths surrounding Anne & co. make an appearance - George's homo- or at least bisexuality; the infamous mole & beginning of a sixth finger; the physical appearance of the foetus Anne miscarriedin 1536 - for which there is no evidence at all, & all of which have been discounted by modern historians. But as a _novel_ it mostly works.
Brandy Purdy does very wellin portraying Jane Parker as an idealistic & socially awkward young womanin love with love, who as the years progress, slowly descends into bitterness, all-consuming hatred & madness. She is a thoroughly unsympathetic character (much like the real Lady Rochford seems to have been) but Purdy's characterisation of her still allowed me to feel some element of pity & understanding of her. I like the first person narrative although Jane's ability to skulk around corners, hidein cupboards & be justin the right place at the right time to witness some of the more crucial events sometimes stretched credulity (her voyeurism was a trifle disturbing too, though seemedin character).
Although we see Anne & George through Jane's jaundiced eyes, they are not, thankfully, rendered one-dimensional. Purdy's take on Henry's courtship of Anne, & her decision to hold out for marriage, is an interesting one, & plausiblein the context of the story. Her depiction of Jane & George's unhappy marriage managed to evoke sympathy for both parties.
Some of the other protagonists though - especially the men accused with Anne & George Boleyn - are less well-drawn, & others I did not particularly like: Norris & Brereton come across as almost interchangeable, & I have to admit, I found the whole "Evergreen Gallants" concept a bit naff; Weston is almost the stereotypical "flamboyant anything-sexual" & Smeaton a rather sad, painfully immature, socially inept teenager with a pathetic adolescent crush (I found it hard to believe that such a drippy boy would even have been noticed by King or Queen, let alone elevated to groom of the privy chamber as his real life counterpart was, regardless of the extent of his musical talent; nor could I imagine him survivingin the maelstrom of court for more than five minutes, let alone 6 or 7 years). While these men are remembered principally for the way they died, & not a great deal is known about them, I would find it refreshing to see more detailed, distinctive characterisationsin fiction.
There are a number of out-there "what the ..?" moments [POTENTIAL SPOILERS] - Jane's brief & quickly regretted liaison with Cromwell, for example. That actually did not bother me - a complete invention, it however made sense at that point of the novel. The homoerotic overtones of George's friendship with Weston had an element of credibility, & overall the friendship between them was rather touching. However, I did not understand the point of the George/Smeaton affair: this seemed to be a nod to Retha Warnicke's "Rise & Fall of Anne Boleyn," but was unnecessary to advance the plot (and I emphasise that Warnicke's theoriesin respect of George Boleyn's sexuality were not supported by compelling evidence & therefore are not accepted by other historians). I did not think the depiction of their interaction - as witnessed by Jane! - worked at all. While it was an original way of leading into that famous "you must not look to have me speak to you as if you were a nobleman" conversation, the idea that a young boy - regardless of how immature he might be - would pursue his male, & higher-ranking, loverin public,in front of said lover's wife among others, at a time when homosexual acts were punishable by death, required too much suspension of disbelief. The bedroom antics of Anne of Cleves & Katherine Howard - bizarre & gratuitous. Of course, all permutations of sexuality have existed since human beings have existed, but I did not see the necessity of including the interlude between _these_ characters.
The final third of the novel, dealing with Katherine Howard's downfall, is not quite as strong as the part that focuses on Anne Boleyn, & Jane's motivesin facilitating Katherine's rendez-vous with Thomas Culpepper are never made clear. Perhaps part of the problem is that it is too brief. I did like Anne of Cleves' cameo appearance, apart from the scene between her & Katherine Howard referred to above, which, while there were poignant aspects to it, was frankly weird & could easily have been cut - or at least, writtenin a more tasteful way, & it is unfortunate that she was written with a clichéd German accent! Katherine herself is portrayed as desperate for affection, rather than sex, but who because of her less than ideal background is unable to differentiate between the two; she emerges as more interesting & sympathetic than she has beenin other novels, & I found myself warming to her. Her description to Jane of how she became sucked into the goings-onin the maids' chamber at Lambeth - which was nothing less than what we would consider child abuse - is quite gut wrenching & sad.
One final comment: while I know it's not compulsory, & I note that Purdy maintains, quite properly, that this is nothing more than a work of fiction, I would have appreciated an "Author's Note" or Afterward, setting out what materials she used for her research (she clearly read Warnicke as one of her secondary sources, though I would hope she also consulted Ives); acknowledging liberties taken & deliberate diversions from the historical record, any errors & the like; & suggestions for further reading. It always interests me to see what sources an author has used, & I respect any fiction writer who publicly states, "I know this did not really happen, but I included thisin my novel for dramatic purposes."
Brandy Purdy has a gift for lyrical & evocative writing, & it is her style which enabled me to overlook the problems I perceived. Like "The Confession of Piers Gaveston," this was a compelling read, despite its shortcomings, though I didn't find "Vengeance" quite as assured. However this author has amazing potential & I look forward to reading more. 3.5 stars.
Do not buy this book - By: Charmkat, 09 Oct 2008 As an avid reader my whole life, & a person who has for a great many years had a huge interestin Tudor/Elizabethan history, I have to say that I have,in all my years of reading, NEVER read such an appalling book as this one. It is nothing less than an insult to those people who this, so called, author Ms Purdy has chosen to write about. I find its contents highly questionable & have to say I am astounded that this (I hesitate to even dignify it with the title 'Book') ever got published. Everyone is entitled to a little leeway when novelising history however the final straw for me with this book was the suggested lesbianism scene that takes place between Anne of Cleves & Katharine Howard. I am appalled that this even reached the published page, much less that it should have been writtenin the first place. In years of reading books & biographies, plus studying & watching documentaries of Tudor history, NEVER have I ever come across even been the remotest allusion to such an event between the two Queens of Henry VIII ever taking place, & I am appalled that the publishers of this book should have allowed this highly defamatory incident to appearin this book. Whilst the characters may be long dead surely they should be accorded at least a little more respect. Furthermore, surely an author writing about historical charactersin British History should demonstrate some responsibility within their writing, as it is often the case that people simply 'believe what they read'. In this event this book is grossly misleading at best.
I will NOT be recommending this so called 'book' to anyone, indeed it is a shame amazon choose to sell such a piece of trash although I have to assume they cannot read everything they sell! If it were not necessary I would not have given it even 1 star however it appears one has to click certain boxes when reviewing. I think amazon should also review this.
Hollywood Wives meets the Tudors - By: J. Kuscher, 27 Sep 2008 I was looking forward to reading this book, never having read about Lady Rochfordin any depth before. I had assumed that this would be a relatively serious study of her, but was sadly disappointed. It is not a well-written book & contains occasional linguistic anachronisms. The mental images conjured up by the text were at times quite laughable. There were large sections of lurid, detailed description of the sexual activities of the subjects which was obviously includedin order to titivate the reader, but served only to degrade the book & it's author. A sorry tale & a badly-written book. It really is a case of Hollywood Wives meets the Tudors. Take it out of a library if you must, but don't waste your money on it.
Entertaining? Yes! Accurate? No... - By: A. S. Clement, 22 Sep 2008 
I really liked this book! I read itin 2 sittings & found it extremely entertaining!!
Is it historically accurate?? Dear god no! But it is entertaining to the last page!
I do have to admit, the writer's decision to make Katherine Howard & Anne of Cleves lesbian lovers was a tad "daring" to say the least! Such a thing would never have happened - but this is historical "fiction".
Unlike other books I've read this writer attempts to portray Jane Boleyn (Lady Rochford)in a more sympathetic light... However you would find it hard to believe that an experienced courtier who had served 4 previous queens would have allowed herself to be coerced into commiting treason by the 15 year old Katherine Howard! In reality Jane Rochford was probably a lot more cunning than this book depicts!
On the whole this book was easy to read, but please do not read it if you are hoping to find an accurate assesment of the tudor court!
