 "Anne the Queen" | 2008-06-07 |
| - Reviewed By User: A17BOOB54CEBKP |
| I enjoyed this book very much, lovely to read a biography of Anne by someone that's as biased toward her as I am. The speculation that her downfall was caused by miscarrying a deformed child is interesting, & believable, but is not backed up by the sources. The chapters on Anne's childhood & family are fascinating, & the author has a deep understanding of the period which she convincingly portrays. She also points out that some of what we've always been told is fact comes largely from the the very unreliable Spanish Ambassador, & isn't stated elsewhere. It's refreshing to have an author tell us that there's a lot about the people & the times we don't know.it's a reminder that history is what's written down, opinions rather than facts. Buy this book, it'll make you think as well as informing you. |
| |
 "New ideas on Anne Boleyn" | 2008-04-15 |
| - Reviewed By User: A197YJR03QW3U4 |
Retha Warnicke is an expert on family relations in early modern society. This brings a unique perspective to the already interesting life of Anne Boleyn. By understanding not only court politics but the gender roles of time, she effectively introduces new and exciting ideas in the history of the Tudor period.
It seems Warnicke would be the first to admit that she does not have a "smoking gun", no deformed fetus was ever recovered, no secret diary detailing the events ever found. However, she bases her conclusions off logical reasoning and a knowledge of the superstitions of the time. Though this book was not written as a popular history, it is readable and very informative, though you might want to do a little bit of research on the Tudors before you pick it up.
I happened to like this book very much, but if you are old school and do not like to be challenged in set beliefs then do not pick this book up. Her ideas are thought provoking, scholarly and make the reader re-evaluate what they might have learned growing up. She presents a different perspective on Anne Boleyn than any other historian before and that is what makes this book scintillating and readable, even if you do not agree with everything (or anything) she writes. |
| |
| "so far so good" | 2008-03-25 |
| - Reviewed By User: A3PX3K0GZB46I1 |
| I'm still reading this book, but so far it's an excellent review of how family politics came in to play with the Boleyn family putting up Anne as a possible match for Henry VIII. The book just doesn't do a very good job of explaining who's who in the courts of that time, but if you've read any other books about the court of Henry VIII, it's not too bad |
| |
 "Tedious and totally inaccurate" | 2008-01-30 |
| - Reviewed By warnec |
This book is full of errors and unsubstantiated presumptions. To start with, although it has now been conclusively proven by many historians that Anne Boleyn was the younger Boleyn girl(Eric Ives,Alison Weir, Antonia Fraser, David Starkey to mention a few)Warnicke insists she was the elder daughter.
She also insists that Anne was born in 1507 when we now know for certain that Anne was born in 1501. The narrative is slow and laborious. I always try to be objective with any book I read but simply could not take this one seriously when it is so full of errors. The historical fiction author Philippa Gregory based her story 'The Other Boleyn Girl' on this book but it really is hard to decide which work is the bigger piece of fiction! |
| |
| "Intriuging Theories which ocassionally hit true gold mines" | 2007-05-23 |
| - Reviewed By User: A1IHKELHNFMKZ |
Since becoming interested in Tudor history, I've been drawn like a moth to a flame to Anne. First, it was with extreme distaste-what kind of woman pushes herself in front of a king with a good and respectable wife? Then, I offered some respect-ok, she was very ahead of her times and intelligent. After that, I truly admired her, close to hero worship-she can't be capable of bad things! Now, I believe, I've come to my most reasonable conclusion; Anne was a good person, with very real flaws who made mistakes but also did England monstorous good. I think that this is what Warnicke believes as well.
I have not done the appropriate leg work for Warnicke's deformed fetus theory. I found the evidence she uses to be sketchy at best-the most she could prove is that if Anne HAD miscarried a deformed fetus, it would have been cause for execution. However, I feel she did not come through with proving that she actually did. George Boleyn's homosexuality was similar-if he HAD been homosexual, I see why Henry would have him executed as well-however, I don't think that provides enough evidence so as to look completely over his reputation as a womanizer.
Other than that, Warnicke makes intriuging and interesting points. The discrediting of Chapuys as an accurate source is mightily overdue, making me want to shove this book at Alison Weir and watch her as she realized she messed up a good third of her "Six Wives" book by repeatedly quoting the man.
Additionally, Warnicke points out that people did not hate her becuase of her personality-she could have been one of the greates people on earth with the warmest heart and England, Spain and most of France would have still detested her. This fact carries on to today, as well, though with complications. We NEED to hear that Anne wanted Mary Tudor executed and that she hated Katherine of Aragon so that we can give more concrete ways to say we hate her. "The Other Woman Syndrome" is sweeping across the nation-any woman who falls in love with and/or comes between a man and his wife/girlfriend/life partner is instantly a homwrecking whore whom we judge instantly without even knowing her. However, when a female leaves her husband/boyfriend/life partner for another man, that woman was simply following her heart, and the man could not help who he fell in love with.
This is how it is with Anne as well. If we can prove that Chapuys was wrong, that he was a liar, that he made things up becuase of the afformentioned reasons(which Warnicke does, undeniably), if we could prove that Anne was a sincerly good person, and a better Queen than Katherine of Aragon, then we might be wrong about the "other women" in our own lives.
Warnicke, however, does have some odd things going about this book. I thought the Boleyn birth orders was a dead issue-as was Mary Boleyn's promiscuity. I have a hard time getting behind her assumption that Anne was born in 1507. I always thought 1501 was much too early, but 1507 would mean she was a maid of honor to Queen Mary of France at age seven, and that she returned to England at fourteen. 1504 has always been my favorite birthyear, but anything between 1502 and 1505 I've considered the most likely years. And I find it hard to believe Anne was in love with Henry as early as 1526. I'm quite positive she grew to love him, but I've always suspected this was right before she slept with him(What can I say? I loved Anne of the Thousand Days). To say that she did and this is why she continued to let him pursue her is questionable, but not worth putting the book down over.
Overall, I'd say it's very good, but do not accept Warnicke's more outlandish theories as fact; do your own sidework. 3.5 stars. |
| |
 "Speculative but intriguing" | 2006-03-13 |
| - Reviewed By phantom594 |
I read this book several years ago but returned to it to refresh my memory after being referred to it as a source for Philippa Gregory's The Last Boleyn Girl. While some of Wernicke's assertions are speculative and her writing is a bit dry (especially if you're used to some of the more novelistic writing in popular history these days), she makes a lot of good points, corrects some incorrect assumptions that have been repeated ad nauseam, and generally emphasizes how much we DON'T know.
While there is no definitive evidence for her theory that Anne miscarried a deformed fetus in 1536, it certainly has plausibility and explains a lot of the mystery surrounding Henry's rejection of her and her precipitous downfall. On the other hand, Wernicke makes a good argument that there is virtually NO evidence that George Boleyn's wife was a principal witness against him in the accusations that he had committed incest with his sister, yet as far as I can remember this has been repeated as undoubted fact in just about every book on Anne I have ever read, fiction or nonfiction.
As other reviewers have said, while this book is definitely worth reading, it should NOT be the first biography of Anne that someone newly interested in her or her period picks up. |
| |
| "Interest theory, good writing, good overview of the court" | 2005-09-17 |
| - Reviewed By mksmith1 |
| The story of Anne Boleyn, doomed second wife of Henry VIII and mother of Elizabeth I, is well known, but the author is interested less in repeating the biographical facts and more in investigating her unintentional role in dynastic Tudor politics. Was she the victim of a Cromwellian conspiracy? Or, as Warnicke suggests, more the victim of circumstances in her inability to produce a male heir? It's certain that Henry was profoundly insecure about his family's hold on the throne, and that Anne, daughter of the earl of Ormond, was closely related to the Howard dukes of Norfolk. The earl, in fact, created a network of family connections in pursuit of his own dynastic ambitions that helped to doom his daughter. A first-rate study of family politics, and you don't have to accept her own conspiratorial theories. |
| |
 "intriguing theories, minimal evidence, tepid writing" | 2005-06-07 |
| - Reviewed By paulmccluredc |
Warnicke has done an impressive job researching the evidence that survives, and-- until her theories really get rolling-- is quite scrupulous at admitting where there are gaps. (Many readers may be surprised that there are periods of months during Anne's brief time as queen where not much is known about her.) But eventually Warnicke fills the gaps with her own theories: that the male fetus Anne miscarried in 1536 was deformed, that this caused Henry to think of her as a witch or sorceress, and that the men accused of adultery with Anne were all libertines or guilty of the new crime of buggery. These theories are not borne out by the limited evidence Warnicke examines, but she becomes so convinced of them herself that she starts treating them as fact and interpreting a wide range of events in light of them. (She seems confident, for example, that the allegedly deformed fetus was on Henry's mind at many specific points.)
It's sad that Warnicke's theses weren't subjected to more rigorous scrutiny before publication; given that several chapters originated as conference talks or journal articles, it calls into question whether the academic world has anyone listening as well as talking. Certainly no lawyer or scientist would consider this book's main arguments to be substantiated. By losing sight of possible counterarguments, Warnicke's careful work can seem no better than if she'd never consulted the original sources at all.
The writing and editing compound the frustration. In addition to some tortured syntax throughout, Warnicke sometimes belabors less controversial points (she states over and over that there was no formal faction linking Anne with Cromwell, for example). But toughest from a reader's standpoint is her loss of perspective that, even though we know how it ends, there is still a story to be told here. Hence she can write that Anne went to her lying-in chamber two weeks before the birth of "Elizabeth, her only surviving child." While every reader knows that this would become Anne's only successful childbirth, no one could have realized that in 1533. Jamming in the later facts removes any sense of the life being lived at the time. Moments like this add up to an approach to Anne that seems strangely lifeless: I suspect any readers who react positively to this work are bringing their own enthusiasm for Anne, and their own sense of her personality, to the book-- they aren't picking it up from Warnicke.
One specific irony: Warnicke's theory that George Boleyn, Anne's brother, had homosexual leanings, has already informed a popular novel and miniseries, "The Other Boleyn Girl." So this theory is on its way to becoming accepted as fact by people who won't realize that it's not actually supported by surviving historical evidence. |
| |
| "A bit dry but isn't that the English way?" | 2003-08-17 |
| - Reviewed By lightningsgirl |
| Rise and Fall is a bit dry. It's a workmanlike text book but I enjoyed it. If you're coming to this book expecting romance, high drama and emotion go find another book. The author treats Anne like a politician or a warrior. She shows what steps Anne took and offers a theory as to why she took them and finally, the author shows why Anne fell. You'll probably enjoy Lady in the Tower or The Concubine better but if you collect Anne Boleyn books this is a worthy one for your collection. |
| |
| "Rather Dry..." | 2002-07-27 |
| - Reviewed By Anonymous |
| This book is extremely well researched and accurate,yet it is rather a dry read and would not capture the imagination (or frankly attention) of someone unfamiliar with Anne's life. |
| |
Expedited Available
