What do you think?
Rate this book
Hunting the Falcon: Henry VIII, Anne Boleyn, and the Marriage That Shook Europe
“A fierce, scholarly tour-de-force. . . . Hunting the Falcon brilliantly shows how time, circumstance and politics combined to accelerate Anne’s triumph and tragedy." — Tina Brown, New York Times Book Review
A groundbreaking, freshly-researched examination of one of the most dramatic and consequential marriages in Henry VIII’s long courtship, short union, and brutal execution of Anne Boleyn.
Hunting the Falcon is the story of how Henry VIII’s obsessive desire for Anne Boleyn changed him and his country forever. John Guy and Julia Fox, two of the most acclaimed and distinguished historians of this period, have joined forces to present Anne and Henry in startlingly new ways. By closely examining the most recent archival discoveries, and peeling back layers of historical myth and misinterpretation and distortion, Guy and Fox are able to set Anne and Henry’s tragic relationship against the major international events of the time, and integrate and reinterpret sources hidden in plain sight or simply misunderstood. Among other things, they dispel lingering and latently misogynistic assumptions about Anne which anachronistically presumed that a sixteenth-century woman, even a queen, could exert little to no influence on the politics and beliefs of a patriarchal society. They reveal how, in fact, Anne was a shrewd, if ruthless, politician in her own right, a woman who steered Henry and his policies, often against the advice he received from his male advisers—and whom Henry seriously contemplated making joint sovereign.
Hunting the Falcon sets the facts–and some completely new finds–into a far wider frame, providing an appreciation of this misunderstood and underestimated woman. It explores how Anne organized her “side” of the royal court on novel and (in male eyes) subversive lines compared to her queenly predecessors, adopting instead French protocol by which the sexes mingled freely in her private chambers. Men could share in the women’s often sexually charged courtly “pastimes” and had liberal access to Anne, and she to them—encounters from which she gained much of her political intelligence and extended her authority, and which also sowed the seeds of her own downfall.
An exhilarating feat of historical research and analysis, Hunting the Falcon is also a thrilling and tragic story of a marriage that has proved of enduring fascination over the centuries. But in the hands of John Guy and Julia Fox, even the most knowledgeable reader will encounter this story as if for the first time.
A groundbreaking, freshly-researched examination of one of the most dramatic and consequential marriages in Henry VIII’s long courtship, short union, and brutal execution of Anne Boleyn.
Hunting the Falcon is the story of how Henry VIII’s obsessive desire for Anne Boleyn changed him and his country forever. John Guy and Julia Fox, two of the most acclaimed and distinguished historians of this period, have joined forces to present Anne and Henry in startlingly new ways. By closely examining the most recent archival discoveries, and peeling back layers of historical myth and misinterpretation and distortion, Guy and Fox are able to set Anne and Henry’s tragic relationship against the major international events of the time, and integrate and reinterpret sources hidden in plain sight or simply misunderstood. Among other things, they dispel lingering and latently misogynistic assumptions about Anne which anachronistically presumed that a sixteenth-century woman, even a queen, could exert little to no influence on the politics and beliefs of a patriarchal society. They reveal how, in fact, Anne was a shrewd, if ruthless, politician in her own right, a woman who steered Henry and his policies, often against the advice he received from his male advisers—and whom Henry seriously contemplated making joint sovereign.
Hunting the Falcon sets the facts–and some completely new finds–into a far wider frame, providing an appreciation of this misunderstood and underestimated woman. It explores how Anne organized her “side” of the royal court on novel and (in male eyes) subversive lines compared to her queenly predecessors, adopting instead French protocol by which the sexes mingled freely in her private chambers. Men could share in the women’s often sexually charged courtly “pastimes” and had liberal access to Anne, and she to them—encounters from which she gained much of her political intelligence and extended her authority, and which also sowed the seeds of her own downfall.
An exhilarating feat of historical research and analysis, Hunting the Falcon is also a thrilling and tragic story of a marriage that has proved of enduring fascination over the centuries. But in the hands of John Guy and Julia Fox, even the most knowledgeable reader will encounter this story as if for the first time.
624 pages, Hardcover
First published September 14, 2023
About the author
John Guy
165 books229 followersJohn Guy is recognised as one of Britain's most exciting and scholarly historians, bringing the past to life with the written word and on the broadcast media with accomplished ease. He's a very modern face of history.
His ability for first class story-telling and books that read as thrillingly as a detective story makes John Guy a Chandleresque writer of the history world. Guy hunts down facts with forensic skill, he doesn't just recite historical moments as they stand; he brings names and faces to life in all their human achievements and weaknesses. He looks for the killer clues so we can see how history unfolded. Like a detective on the trail of a crime, he teases out what makes his subjects tick. With his intimate knowledge of the archives, his speciality is uncovering completely fresh lines of enquiry. He's never content to repeat what we already know but rather, he goes that extra step to solve history's riddles. He takes you on a journey to the heart of the matter. Forget notions of musty academics, when Guy takes hold of history the case he states is always utterly compelling. Whether it's Thomas More or Mary Queen of Scots, Guy makes these people so real you suddenly realize you are hearing them speak to you. You enter into their world. You feel you can almost reach out and touch them.
Born in Australia in 1949, John Guy grew up in England and by the age of 16 he knew he wanted to be a historian. In 2001 he made an accomplished debut as a presenter for the television programme Timewatch, on the life of Thomas More. Today he's turning history books on their head as he wins universal praise and the 2004 Whitbread Prize for biography for his thrilling account of the life of Mary Queen of Scots.
As well as presenting five documentaries for BBC 2 television, including the Timewatch film The King's Servant and the four-part Renaissance Secrets (Series 2), he has contributed to Meet the Ancestors (BBC 2), and to Channel 4's Time Team and Royal Deaths and Diseases. Wolsey's Lost Palace of Hampton Court was a short-listed finalist for the 2002 Channel 4 television awards.
John Guy also appears regularly on BBC Radio 2, Radio 3, Radio 4, BBC World Service and BBC Scotland. In print he currently writes or reviews for The Sunday Times, The Guardian, The Economist, the Times Literary Supplement, BBC History Magazine and History Today.
His broadcast and journalism experience builds upon his impeccable CV as an academic and author.
Having read History under the supervision of Professor Sir Geoffrey Elton, the pre-eminent Tudor scholar of the late-twentieth century, John Guy took a First and became a Research Fellow of Selwyn College in 1970. Awarded a Greene Cup by Clare College in 1970, he completed his PhD on Cardinal Wolsey in 1973 and won the Yorke Prize of the University of Cambridge in 1976.
John Guy has lectured extensively on Early Modern British History and Renaissance Political Thought in both Britain and the United States. He has published 16 books and numerous academic articles.
John Guy lives in North London. He is a Fellow of Clare College, University of Cambridge, where he teaches part-time so he can devote more time to his writing and broadcasting career.
His ability for first class story-telling and books that read as thrillingly as a detective story makes John Guy a Chandleresque writer of the history world. Guy hunts down facts with forensic skill, he doesn't just recite historical moments as they stand; he brings names and faces to life in all their human achievements and weaknesses. He looks for the killer clues so we can see how history unfolded. Like a detective on the trail of a crime, he teases out what makes his subjects tick. With his intimate knowledge of the archives, his speciality is uncovering completely fresh lines of enquiry. He's never content to repeat what we already know but rather, he goes that extra step to solve history's riddles. He takes you on a journey to the heart of the matter. Forget notions of musty academics, when Guy takes hold of history the case he states is always utterly compelling. Whether it's Thomas More or Mary Queen of Scots, Guy makes these people so real you suddenly realize you are hearing them speak to you. You enter into their world. You feel you can almost reach out and touch them.
Born in Australia in 1949, John Guy grew up in England and by the age of 16 he knew he wanted to be a historian. In 2001 he made an accomplished debut as a presenter for the television programme Timewatch, on the life of Thomas More. Today he's turning history books on their head as he wins universal praise and the 2004 Whitbread Prize for biography for his thrilling account of the life of Mary Queen of Scots.
As well as presenting five documentaries for BBC 2 television, including the Timewatch film The King's Servant and the four-part Renaissance Secrets (Series 2), he has contributed to Meet the Ancestors (BBC 2), and to Channel 4's Time Team and Royal Deaths and Diseases. Wolsey's Lost Palace of Hampton Court was a short-listed finalist for the 2002 Channel 4 television awards.
John Guy also appears regularly on BBC Radio 2, Radio 3, Radio 4, BBC World Service and BBC Scotland. In print he currently writes or reviews for The Sunday Times, The Guardian, The Economist, the Times Literary Supplement, BBC History Magazine and History Today.
His broadcast and journalism experience builds upon his impeccable CV as an academic and author.
Having read History under the supervision of Professor Sir Geoffrey Elton, the pre-eminent Tudor scholar of the late-twentieth century, John Guy took a First and became a Research Fellow of Selwyn College in 1970. Awarded a Greene Cup by Clare College in 1970, he completed his PhD on Cardinal Wolsey in 1973 and won the Yorke Prize of the University of Cambridge in 1976.
John Guy has lectured extensively on Early Modern British History and Renaissance Political Thought in both Britain and the United States. He has published 16 books and numerous academic articles.
John Guy lives in North London. He is a Fellow of Clare College, University of Cambridge, where he teaches part-time so he can devote more time to his writing and broadcasting career.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 193 reviews
May 19, 2024
On this day, May 19, 488 years ago Anne Boleyn was beheaded, and I am glad I completed the book by two celebrated historians who put their heads together to undertake yet another effort to understand the forces behind her rise and fall. The allure of Anne Boleyn draws me to her even though she is not my favourite English queen, not that I have one, but I think it is her intelligence and independence that I find impossible to resist. The chapter on Anne's piety and pastimes was most enjoyable to me, dealing with lighter themes and postponing the unavoidable. Not my last book on the Queen, I am certain of that.
October 12, 2023
4 Stars
I've read an untold amount of biographies about The Tudors and specifically Queen Anne Boleyn over the last few decades. I personally wouldn't call this one "groundbreaking", but it is a very high quality biography on the subject with tons of detail and obviously well-researched. At almost 800 pages, it is a mammoth undertaking, although at 65% (post Anne Boleyn execution) there is an Epilogue, Acknowledgements, and multiple Appendix entries and notes expounding on various topics in the book. If you've never read about this topic and really want to dig into the subject, this would be an excellent choice.
Thank you to the publisher Harper who provided an advance reader copy via NetGalley.
I've read an untold amount of biographies about The Tudors and specifically Queen Anne Boleyn over the last few decades. I personally wouldn't call this one "groundbreaking", but it is a very high quality biography on the subject with tons of detail and obviously well-researched. At almost 800 pages, it is a mammoth undertaking, although at 65% (post Anne Boleyn execution) there is an Epilogue, Acknowledgements, and multiple Appendix entries and notes expounding on various topics in the book. If you've never read about this topic and really want to dig into the subject, this would be an excellent choice.
Thank you to the publisher Harper who provided an advance reader copy via NetGalley.
September 26, 2024
2.5 stars rounded up
This has interesting and solid research.
This covers some ground missed by other biographies of Anne Boleyn.
That said, this gives too much weight to Eustace Chapuys' version of the events surrounding Anne Boleyn's rise and fall. It's a bit like having Donald Trump write a biography on Barack Obama, it's gonna be bullshit and riddled with inaccuracies based on weird biased theories. That doesn't mean that everything Chapuys wrote on Anne must be dismissed, but it must be backed by other sources or understood to be biased.
Also, the authors operate under the theory that Anne set the terms for her relationship with Henry, and really no evidence points to that. Henry's letters to Anne are treated as proof by the authors that Anne was controlling Henry in their relationship. The weakness in this theory is that no one knows what Anne wrote to Henry, it's possible that her letters to him would add clarity to this theory but since we don't have them, it's weak to attach theory to proof that is so clearly one-sided. His letters are written in response to what she wrote and without knowing what that is the speculation is reckless and seems to be largely based on sexist views of Anne. I believe, if one lets go of the sexist need to blame Anne for her own downfall, it's clear to see just by studying Henry's own history and behaviors, that no one set terms for him after the death of his father and grandmother. It's clear that Henry set the terms with Anne because once he's done with Anne, he murdered her, and she's not the only wife he murdered.
Murdering a queen, even an unfaithful one was rare as fuck at this time period in Europe. So rare in fact to other European examples one has to return to the times of Roman rule of Europe almost a thousand years before Henry's birth to find a similar situation. Queen Consorts are treated unfairly, marginalized, set aside and even forced into nunneries but they aren't outright murdered. Henry VIII murdered 2 of his wives, it was unprecedented in Europe and remains so to this day. Henry VIII is such a commonly known figure in English speaking countries, thanks to colonization, that I think his behaviors have been seen as normal for the times he lived in but that is not historically accurate at all. His behavior was extreme and bizarre even for the times he lived in. He murdered close family, friends, and employees both before and after Anne. It makes zero sense to hold her to blame for what are clearly flaws in Henry’s so-called character.
The tone of this narrative seems to be one of admonishment for Anne not 'accepting" her place as Henry's mistress. Why is Anne vilified for refusing to be Henry's mistress? It's such a weird fucked up patriarchal position to take, especially in modern times. It feels dystopian to need to assert that Anne had every right to refuse to sleep with Henry or be his mistress. Henry wasn't entitled, by virtue of his position, to any woman he set his greedy pig eyes on. Kingship had rules, even in Henry VIII's era. He simply defied those rules and really all rules of human decency and this whole book is about how this is the fault of Anne Boleyn. It's just truly uncomfortable and needlessly sexist.
Honestly we don't know why Henry decided to divorce Catherine and marry Anne. I highly doubt it was because Anne refused to sleep with him otherwise. This theory that Henry defied every convention of his era and defied his own deeply felt religious principles because he was desperate to have sex with Anne is laughable. Henry kept his affairs private, but I'm sure other women turned him down. We wouldn't have records of it, but that doesn't mean it never happened. Even if Anne said that she would not sleep with him unless they were married, that doesn't mean she wanted him to divorce Catherine. She had zero idea he would even think of that since it hadn't happened before in European history. It's much more likely, to my thinking, that Anne gave Henry terms of engagement hoping he'd go away. Giving impossible scenarios is a nice way to turn down a man without him taking it personally. Can you imagine what a challenge it would be in the middle ages to a tell a king no when he propositioned you? This would have to be handled deftly and no doubt chivalry had customs for these type of occasions.
Today, I have unmarried, unengaged, 100% single women friends who wear wedding rings so strange men will not harass them as they go about their lives. In our modern times, women are murdered regularly for refusing men who are strangers but feel entitled to a yes if they ask them out. This is in a society in which women can be voted into ultimate positions of power. A society in which birth control, abortion and divorce are all legally available options to most women in the Western world. Still, every single day men with fragile egos murder women who turn them down. It's such an epidemic that fake phone lines were used in the 90's to give a working phone number to men who harassed women. I can remember giving men fake phone numbers because they could be unpredictable when told no. We have laws in place to counteract this violence and still women and their children are murdered horribly regularly by men who feel so entitled to any woman they desire that they murder them for declining their advances. If we are aware that we exist in the time in recorded history during which women have the most access to power and autonomy they've ever had in Western society and STILL women are murdered regularly for refusing men, it really shines a light on how precarious Anne's situation with Henry was. She couldn't outright refuse him. She didn't pursue him, she famously pursued Henry Percy. To my mind, it's much more likely that Anne was trying to firmly refuse Henry without offending him and leaving herself open to his retribution.
There's no historical evidence that she pursued Henry as a love interest. Anne isn't tied to Henry before he sets his mind on her. I interpret Anne leaving court and not responding to Henry's letter as quickly as he liked as her trying to politely get away from him, rather than her leading him on. Anne had very little power, and it seemed like she was trying to use what little protocol existed to avoid becoming his mistress. He was her sisters ex-lover for fuckssake. He's the type of tool that is already married but still ruthlessly pursuing his ex-mistress' unmarried sister. He's an asshole and a womanizer. It's the height of sexist thinking to blame his victim for the actions of a committed and confirmed womanizer.
This supposed diabolical plan of Anne's to replace Queen Catherine is never even given evidence to support. It's annoying. I truly don't understand the vitriol against her position in the age of #MeToo.🤷🏾♀️ It's like Anne is treated like a scheming cock-tease for refusing to become the mistress of an already married man.
Henry was King. He's responsible for his own actions and its ignorant and sexist to suggest he was led by Anne. For a time, Henry enjoyed indulging Anne, and when he no longer wanted to indulge her, he ordered her head cut off.
It's chilling as fuck and definitely not her fault.
The fuck🙃
The way grown ass educated adults enable this monster to continue to not be held responsible for his crimes is mind-boggling.
This has interesting and solid research.
This covers some ground missed by other biographies of Anne Boleyn.
That said, this gives too much weight to Eustace Chapuys' version of the events surrounding Anne Boleyn's rise and fall. It's a bit like having Donald Trump write a biography on Barack Obama, it's gonna be bullshit and riddled with inaccuracies based on weird biased theories. That doesn't mean that everything Chapuys wrote on Anne must be dismissed, but it must be backed by other sources or understood to be biased.
Also, the authors operate under the theory that Anne set the terms for her relationship with Henry, and really no evidence points to that. Henry's letters to Anne are treated as proof by the authors that Anne was controlling Henry in their relationship. The weakness in this theory is that no one knows what Anne wrote to Henry, it's possible that her letters to him would add clarity to this theory but since we don't have them, it's weak to attach theory to proof that is so clearly one-sided. His letters are written in response to what she wrote and without knowing what that is the speculation is reckless and seems to be largely based on sexist views of Anne. I believe, if one lets go of the sexist need to blame Anne for her own downfall, it's clear to see just by studying Henry's own history and behaviors, that no one set terms for him after the death of his father and grandmother. It's clear that Henry set the terms with Anne because once he's done with Anne, he murdered her, and she's not the only wife he murdered.
Murdering a queen, even an unfaithful one was rare as fuck at this time period in Europe. So rare in fact to other European examples one has to return to the times of Roman rule of Europe almost a thousand years before Henry's birth to find a similar situation. Queen Consorts are treated unfairly, marginalized, set aside and even forced into nunneries but they aren't outright murdered. Henry VIII murdered 2 of his wives, it was unprecedented in Europe and remains so to this day. Henry VIII is such a commonly known figure in English speaking countries, thanks to colonization, that I think his behaviors have been seen as normal for the times he lived in but that is not historically accurate at all. His behavior was extreme and bizarre even for the times he lived in. He murdered close family, friends, and employees both before and after Anne. It makes zero sense to hold her to blame for what are clearly flaws in Henry’s so-called character.
The tone of this narrative seems to be one of admonishment for Anne not 'accepting" her place as Henry's mistress. Why is Anne vilified for refusing to be Henry's mistress? It's such a weird fucked up patriarchal position to take, especially in modern times. It feels dystopian to need to assert that Anne had every right to refuse to sleep with Henry or be his mistress. Henry wasn't entitled, by virtue of his position, to any woman he set his greedy pig eyes on. Kingship had rules, even in Henry VIII's era. He simply defied those rules and really all rules of human decency and this whole book is about how this is the fault of Anne Boleyn. It's just truly uncomfortable and needlessly sexist.
Honestly we don't know why Henry decided to divorce Catherine and marry Anne. I highly doubt it was because Anne refused to sleep with him otherwise. This theory that Henry defied every convention of his era and defied his own deeply felt religious principles because he was desperate to have sex with Anne is laughable. Henry kept his affairs private, but I'm sure other women turned him down. We wouldn't have records of it, but that doesn't mean it never happened. Even if Anne said that she would not sleep with him unless they were married, that doesn't mean she wanted him to divorce Catherine. She had zero idea he would even think of that since it hadn't happened before in European history. It's much more likely, to my thinking, that Anne gave Henry terms of engagement hoping he'd go away. Giving impossible scenarios is a nice way to turn down a man without him taking it personally. Can you imagine what a challenge it would be in the middle ages to a tell a king no when he propositioned you? This would have to be handled deftly and no doubt chivalry had customs for these type of occasions.
Today, I have unmarried, unengaged, 100% single women friends who wear wedding rings so strange men will not harass them as they go about their lives. In our modern times, women are murdered regularly for refusing men who are strangers but feel entitled to a yes if they ask them out. This is in a society in which women can be voted into ultimate positions of power. A society in which birth control, abortion and divorce are all legally available options to most women in the Western world. Still, every single day men with fragile egos murder women who turn them down. It's such an epidemic that fake phone lines were used in the 90's to give a working phone number to men who harassed women. I can remember giving men fake phone numbers because they could be unpredictable when told no. We have laws in place to counteract this violence and still women and their children are murdered horribly regularly by men who feel so entitled to any woman they desire that they murder them for declining their advances. If we are aware that we exist in the time in recorded history during which women have the most access to power and autonomy they've ever had in Western society and STILL women are murdered regularly for refusing men, it really shines a light on how precarious Anne's situation with Henry was. She couldn't outright refuse him. She didn't pursue him, she famously pursued Henry Percy. To my mind, it's much more likely that Anne was trying to firmly refuse Henry without offending him and leaving herself open to his retribution.
There's no historical evidence that she pursued Henry as a love interest. Anne isn't tied to Henry before he sets his mind on her. I interpret Anne leaving court and not responding to Henry's letter as quickly as he liked as her trying to politely get away from him, rather than her leading him on. Anne had very little power, and it seemed like she was trying to use what little protocol existed to avoid becoming his mistress. He was her sisters ex-lover for fuckssake. He's the type of tool that is already married but still ruthlessly pursuing his ex-mistress' unmarried sister. He's an asshole and a womanizer. It's the height of sexist thinking to blame his victim for the actions of a committed and confirmed womanizer.
This supposed diabolical plan of Anne's to replace Queen Catherine is never even given evidence to support. It's annoying. I truly don't understand the vitriol against her position in the age of #MeToo.🤷🏾♀️ It's like Anne is treated like a scheming cock-tease for refusing to become the mistress of an already married man.
Henry was King. He's responsible for his own actions and its ignorant and sexist to suggest he was led by Anne. For a time, Henry enjoyed indulging Anne, and when he no longer wanted to indulge her, he ordered her head cut off.
It's chilling as fuck and definitely not her fault.
The fuck🙃
The way grown ass educated adults enable this monster to continue to not be held responsible for his crimes is mind-boggling.
June 5, 2024
A good and absorbing overall account of arguably England's most (in)famous married couple.
John Guy and Julia Fox have provided through clear writing with numerous sources, some less well-known and only recently used by Henrician/Boleyn scholars, of the formative years of Anne and how she and Henry came to cross paths that led to a marriage that would leave its mark on them both, as well as many others at court and wider across England.
The formative years of Anne are a key part of the book, and in essence, the wider story of her time as queen. We see how her life and world view is shaped by time at Margaret of Austria's and Claude of France's courts, and how Anne was able to use her intelligence and persona to become the second wife of Henry in what looked like impossible circumstances at the outset of their attraction and relationship. It is also this experience in these two strong and intelligent women's courts that help create her Francophile viewpoint and approach to fashion, charity, and more. The use of documents from the French archives helps greatly, and whilst this doesn't change the wider story or its key aspects, it does help Guy and Fox provide a strong viewpoint on events, the diplomacy at play, and indeed, the life of Anne in Europe, and, in some cases, especially towards the trial of Anne, some clarification on what people said or did not say at court or in correspondence.
One thing I very much liked in the book is the authors' analysis of Anne and her character and behaviours. These are not always favourable, as indeed she could be sharp-tongued, ruthless, and stubborn. Moreover, the authors capture the sense and personality of Henry within their pages, so much so, this reader could feel his glowering and powerful presence on almost every page as they progressed into marriage and onto Anne's final dénouement.
Overall, a lively, enjoyable, and informative book suitable for both the newcomer to this fascinating pair and period, and for those too, who have a few books under their belt already.
John Guy and Julia Fox have provided through clear writing with numerous sources, some less well-known and only recently used by Henrician/Boleyn scholars, of the formative years of Anne and how she and Henry came to cross paths that led to a marriage that would leave its mark on them both, as well as many others at court and wider across England.
The formative years of Anne are a key part of the book, and in essence, the wider story of her time as queen. We see how her life and world view is shaped by time at Margaret of Austria's and Claude of France's courts, and how Anne was able to use her intelligence and persona to become the second wife of Henry in what looked like impossible circumstances at the outset of their attraction and relationship. It is also this experience in these two strong and intelligent women's courts that help create her Francophile viewpoint and approach to fashion, charity, and more. The use of documents from the French archives helps greatly, and whilst this doesn't change the wider story or its key aspects, it does help Guy and Fox provide a strong viewpoint on events, the diplomacy at play, and indeed, the life of Anne in Europe, and, in some cases, especially towards the trial of Anne, some clarification on what people said or did not say at court or in correspondence.
One thing I very much liked in the book is the authors' analysis of Anne and her character and behaviours. These are not always favourable, as indeed she could be sharp-tongued, ruthless, and stubborn. Moreover, the authors capture the sense and personality of Henry within their pages, so much so, this reader could feel his glowering and powerful presence on almost every page as they progressed into marriage and onto Anne's final dénouement.
Overall, a lively, enjoyable, and informative book suitable for both the newcomer to this fascinating pair and period, and for those too, who have a few books under their belt already.
July 26, 2023
An extremely well written book about the marriage of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn. Extreme detail on almost every facet of their relationship before and after marriage..
Many books I have read about this couple make Anne to be a victim which at the end she was. I found her to be conniving and extremely hateful especially to those related in any way to Queen Katherine of Aragon and daughter Mary. Katherine and Mary were separated and never allowed to see or communicate with each other after the king's relationship with Anne.
I have to admit when I first started reading this book I wondered if the book was about Anne Boleyn but the book did pick up after a few chapters and became much more interesting.
Any one interested in the history of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn and how their marriage changed Europe will want to read this book.
Many books I have read about this couple make Anne to be a victim which at the end she was. I found her to be conniving and extremely hateful especially to those related in any way to Queen Katherine of Aragon and daughter Mary. Katherine and Mary were separated and never allowed to see or communicate with each other after the king's relationship with Anne.
I have to admit when I first started reading this book I wondered if the book was about Anne Boleyn but the book did pick up after a few chapters and became much more interesting.
Any one interested in the history of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn and how their marriage changed Europe will want to read this book.
January 9, 2024
Beautifully written and meticulously researched I very much enjoyed this work.Although there is not much new here for an avid follower of the Tudors I would definitely look forward to anything else this author would put forward in the future on this subject.
November 3, 2023
I always struggle to review non-fiction about Anne Boleyn, being so deeply-entrenched in the scholarly world about her, and I end up just not reviewing it. Add to that the fact that a lot of recent releases that promise to "reveal Anne Boleyn as never been seen before" rely on the sensationalist surge of popular interest about the six queens, which by itself isn't offensive, but those works tend to be fatuous, poorly-researched, and frankly irritating.
I was so looking forward to this release in particular because the authors talked about mining a previously-overlooked quarry of sources in the French libraries. This was so exciting to me that I listened to podcast episodes interviewing these authors several times. I think for the most part, I got what I expected from this book.
There are so many studies about Anne that at this point, it's hard to find a new angle or lens to approach her with, but this book manages to give some fresh perspectives. I'm so glad there was an emphasis on the political and social landscape of the 16th century, how that shaped Anne and Henry's personalities, motivations, and dynamic with each other, and how, in turn, they remolded that landscape.
I was particularly pleased with the deeper dive into Anne's experiences in the French court and how it debunks the myth that it turned her into some kind of sexual femme fatale who used what she learned in France to entice Henry. Rather, the book focuses on her education in humanist ideas at the feet of Claude of France, who barely gets any credit for her participation in the intellectual sphere, and in the presence of Marguerite of Angoulême.
So many works, both fiction and non-fiction, concentrate on Anne's courtship with Henry, but I can count on one hand how many works explore Anne's years in Mechelen and the French court - and those are personally what I'm most interested in! Understandably, this is due to the availability of more sources about Anne when she returns to England, but the authors really hit a treasure trove of sources in the French libraries.
Overall, a solid addition to the Anne Boleyn canon.
Thank you NetGalley for the eARC!
I was so looking forward to this release in particular because the authors talked about mining a previously-overlooked quarry of sources in the French libraries. This was so exciting to me that I listened to podcast episodes interviewing these authors several times. I think for the most part, I got what I expected from this book.
There are so many studies about Anne that at this point, it's hard to find a new angle or lens to approach her with, but this book manages to give some fresh perspectives. I'm so glad there was an emphasis on the political and social landscape of the 16th century, how that shaped Anne and Henry's personalities, motivations, and dynamic with each other, and how, in turn, they remolded that landscape.
I was particularly pleased with the deeper dive into Anne's experiences in the French court and how it debunks the myth that it turned her into some kind of sexual femme fatale who used what she learned in France to entice Henry. Rather, the book focuses on her education in humanist ideas at the feet of Claude of France, who barely gets any credit for her participation in the intellectual sphere, and in the presence of Marguerite of Angoulême.
So many works, both fiction and non-fiction, concentrate on Anne's courtship with Henry, but I can count on one hand how many works explore Anne's years in Mechelen and the French court - and those are personally what I'm most interested in! Understandably, this is due to the availability of more sources about Anne when she returns to England, but the authors really hit a treasure trove of sources in the French libraries.
Overall, a solid addition to the Anne Boleyn canon.
Thank you NetGalley for the eARC!
September 2, 2024
Royal reads 2024
9/2 finished the book except I didn’t read the appendices. I think I’m Boleyn-ed out. Fascinating that people will continue to write about her through the ages. Until an old trunk is found in some great house’s attic with breakthrough documentation of something I really don’t think I need to read much more about her. Maybe some historical fiction? I may still have a few books of that. But this book is just a regurgitation of the same ole same ole. I do recommend it as a general coverage of Anne’s life. It was relatively short considering it finished about 64% in . But nothing new. Is presented. It’s just a pleasant version of her story.
So this book explains how the compilation of KHVIII’s letters to Anne ended up in the Vatican library. The way it’s explained makes it sound like the author is really stating “well, duh” to begin her explanation, but part of me thinks it’s a bit too simplistic? In just a couple of lines, then done. I’m not saying the explanation is wrong. It just seems so disappointing. Definitely not as romantic as I had always hoped once the initial removal was discussed. I wish we still had Anne’s letters to Henry, but then I wonder did she write many that emotional? She played the game for so long, and he really wasn’t her true love. One of my favorite things is when references to the two are found in the various palaces because they were quite difficult to find and recarve. I wish that all of that historical stuff hadn’t been royally destroyed especially since she had such an influence on British history
9/2 finished the book except I didn’t read the appendices. I think I’m Boleyn-ed out. Fascinating that people will continue to write about her through the ages. Until an old trunk is found in some great house’s attic with breakthrough documentation of something I really don’t think I need to read much more about her. Maybe some historical fiction? I may still have a few books of that. But this book is just a regurgitation of the same ole same ole. I do recommend it as a general coverage of Anne’s life. It was relatively short considering it finished about 64% in . But nothing new. Is presented. It’s just a pleasant version of her story.
So this book explains how the compilation of KHVIII’s letters to Anne ended up in the Vatican library. The way it’s explained makes it sound like the author is really stating “well, duh” to begin her explanation, but part of me thinks it’s a bit too simplistic? In just a couple of lines, then done. I’m not saying the explanation is wrong. It just seems so disappointing. Definitely not as romantic as I had always hoped once the initial removal was discussed. I wish we still had Anne’s letters to Henry, but then I wonder did she write many that emotional? She played the game for so long, and he really wasn’t her true love. One of my favorite things is when references to the two are found in the various palaces because they were quite difficult to find and recarve. I wish that all of that historical stuff hadn’t been royally destroyed especially since she had such an influence on British history
January 16, 2024
The book had a great level of detail in every corner of Henry and Anne's lives, the Tudor court and foreign affairs. Whilst a lot of the information consolidates what I had learned at A level, the text explores the context to the marriage and how Anne can be seen as an early feminist figure, achieving power and status during the English reformation as a result of her experiences in France as a lady of the household to Marguerite of Angoulême. It interestingly places a lot of influence on the international affairs of France and Spain and how the actions of King Charles and Francis shaped the direction of Henry and Anne's marriage. The popular narrative of her hunger for religious reform are explained through her achieving control over Henry but this power also rightly explains the evil side of Anne, through her often cruel treatment to Katherine of Aragon and Lady Mary.
The book concludes on the self-indulged nature of Henry VIII and how the wives, members of the Tudor court and in particular Anne, should be seen as victims of Henry's Tyranny above anything else which is a crucial summary.
The book concludes on the self-indulged nature of Henry VIII and how the wives, members of the Tudor court and in particular Anne, should be seen as victims of Henry's Tyranny above anything else which is a crucial summary.
December 7, 2023
4.5 stars
January 18, 2024
I feel obscurely disappointed in this book and can't really pinpoint why. I was particularly looking forward to it because of previous experience with the authors. John Guy's biography of Mary Stuart seemed to me to be definitive - he gave Mary her due when mostly no one else has, previous writers preferring to concentrate on her tragic love life. Julia Fox's dual biography of Catherine of Aragon and Juana of Castile used facts and research to paint a very different picture of Juana than the madwoman of previously standard history. I was hoping for a look at Anne from the same new viewpoint, and didn't entirely get it.
I suppose I was set up for disappointment on page 2, when in the discussion of Henry VIII's father, I read, "When in 1483 the sybaritic Edward [IV] suddenly died, his calculating brother Richard, Duke of Gloucester, sprang into action, imprisoning his two young nephews, the uncrowned Edward V and his younger brother Richard, now the Duke of York, in the Tower from where they shortly disappeared. Usurpers came cheap in the fifteenth century." Yes I know this is not the era in which they are focused, but given their archival and revisionist mindset I was unpleasantly surprised to see this canned remark about Richard and his nephews, given there has been so much recent research complicating the picture. If they don't want to discuss this, at least don't sling darts.
Their focus was not really on Anne, which is probably why I was slightly disappointed. It was on government and European diplomacy, which was intricate and busy during the years Anne was in Henry's life. Once in awhile they remembered Anne herself, and made performative gestures toward her unusual talents and apparent principles regarding religion, education, and poor relief, but in context it almost felt like they thought, "Oh we need to remember to tell people about Anne's principles." And I am always slightly uncomfortable when historians seem to write Anne's biography from the dispatches of Eustace Chapuys without questioning the extent to which the gossip he picked up around court was accurate.
They also seem to take a much more sympathetic view than most contemporary historians of Henry with respect to his daughter Mary. Henry was very good at having it both ways, and made great shows of how much he loved his daughter while simultaneously making heartless and even brutal choices about what to do with her, while blaming Anne for those choices. Clearly it wasn't just Anne, as became clear after she was dead. I found it a slightly odd choice for them to make much of how much Henry loved his daughter and wanted to do right by her, when this is really not at all evident. Henry was all about Henry. And they know this, because in the epilogue (one of the best parts of the book) is this, which could easily be applied to some loud actors on today's political stage: "Over-indulged by a doting mother and over-protected by an autocratic father, Henry grew into a narcissist who saw exercising control as his birthright, a man who never accepted blame for his own actions and always looked for scapegoats. A stickler for obedience and a stranger to remorse or guilt, he confronted any challenge to his authority with a wall of anger, his fear and insecurity so effectively buried that he did not even acknowledge they existed." Agreed!
In a way there was a hole at the heart of this book where Anne should have been. I wish this had been the kind of book about Anne that Guy wrote about Mary, or that Fox wrote about Juana. Despite occasional gestures, I didn't get the feeling they cared much for Anne, although their judgment of George was refreshing. If you come to this book wanting to read about the fury of diplomacy among France, England, the Empire, and the papacy between 1527 and 1536, you won't be disappointed. If you want to see any sort of reassessment of Anne, it's not here.
Edited to add, there was one odd sentence that tripped me up, in the most interesting section which was the part about Anne's life at the European courts where she came of age. They said something like, "Anne was seeing a different model of how royal women behaved than she saw at the English court," and I thought, but she was never at the English court - she didn't observe this contrast till after she came home. It was a small disjunction but these things always get my attention.
I suppose I was set up for disappointment on page 2, when in the discussion of Henry VIII's father, I read, "When in 1483 the sybaritic Edward [IV] suddenly died, his calculating brother Richard, Duke of Gloucester, sprang into action, imprisoning his two young nephews, the uncrowned Edward V and his younger brother Richard, now the Duke of York, in the Tower from where they shortly disappeared. Usurpers came cheap in the fifteenth century." Yes I know this is not the era in which they are focused, but given their archival and revisionist mindset I was unpleasantly surprised to see this canned remark about Richard and his nephews, given there has been so much recent research complicating the picture. If they don't want to discuss this, at least don't sling darts.
Their focus was not really on Anne, which is probably why I was slightly disappointed. It was on government and European diplomacy, which was intricate and busy during the years Anne was in Henry's life. Once in awhile they remembered Anne herself, and made performative gestures toward her unusual talents and apparent principles regarding religion, education, and poor relief, but in context it almost felt like they thought, "Oh we need to remember to tell people about Anne's principles." And I am always slightly uncomfortable when historians seem to write Anne's biography from the dispatches of Eustace Chapuys without questioning the extent to which the gossip he picked up around court was accurate.
They also seem to take a much more sympathetic view than most contemporary historians of Henry with respect to his daughter Mary. Henry was very good at having it both ways, and made great shows of how much he loved his daughter while simultaneously making heartless and even brutal choices about what to do with her, while blaming Anne for those choices. Clearly it wasn't just Anne, as became clear after she was dead. I found it a slightly odd choice for them to make much of how much Henry loved his daughter and wanted to do right by her, when this is really not at all evident. Henry was all about Henry. And they know this, because in the epilogue (one of the best parts of the book) is this, which could easily be applied to some loud actors on today's political stage: "Over-indulged by a doting mother and over-protected by an autocratic father, Henry grew into a narcissist who saw exercising control as his birthright, a man who never accepted blame for his own actions and always looked for scapegoats. A stickler for obedience and a stranger to remorse or guilt, he confronted any challenge to his authority with a wall of anger, his fear and insecurity so effectively buried that he did not even acknowledge they existed." Agreed!
In a way there was a hole at the heart of this book where Anne should have been. I wish this had been the kind of book about Anne that Guy wrote about Mary, or that Fox wrote about Juana. Despite occasional gestures, I didn't get the feeling they cared much for Anne, although their judgment of George was refreshing. If you come to this book wanting to read about the fury of diplomacy among France, England, the Empire, and the papacy between 1527 and 1536, you won't be disappointed. If you want to see any sort of reassessment of Anne, it's not here.
Edited to add, there was one odd sentence that tripped me up, in the most interesting section which was the part about Anne's life at the European courts where she came of age. They said something like, "Anne was seeing a different model of how royal women behaved than she saw at the English court," and I thought, but she was never at the English court - she didn't observe this contrast till after she came home. It was a small disjunction but these things always get my attention.
November 7, 2023
The story of Anne Boleyn and Henry VIII is a story you only THINK you know, as John Guy and Julia Fox reexamine the history and place it in the context of the bigger picture of European politics and then-current events.
I am in absolute AWE of how much is revealed by taking the "well known" story of the rise and fall of Anne Boleyn and taking it out of the vacuum it is so often presented in and showing how events in her life were so HUGELY impacted by the political currents of Europe.
For example, Fox and Guy argues that the question of why Henry didn't notice Anne for years and then suddenly was obsessed with her is answered by realizing he notices Anne and her French manners, at the same time that his alliance with Spain disintegrates and he is making noises about allying with France. Suddenly, French fashions are getting his notice in a positive way - as well as her knowledge of the French court she brought having served Queen Claude of France.
And more.
I was glued to the page, fascinated all over again by the biography of Anne Boleyn, amazed at all the evidence Fox and Guy dug up of the many, many people who supported Anne's ambitions for the crown, as well as all she managed to do in a mere thousand days to advance the cause of the Reformation.
A must-read biography if you want the REAL story of Anne Boleyn.
January 7, 2024
"The tumultuous events of Henry and Anne's courtship and marriage had made them the cynosure of all eyes for the best part of a decade and changed England forever. But Anne did not change Henry. He changed himself."
Now THAT is how you end a book.
I think this book got more interesting the closer it got to the end
Okay so the fact that Anne and her framed lover's liaisons didn't even line up with where the court was at the time MAKES ME SO MAD. So for instance Cromwell's record would say that Anne met with her lover on x date in Greenwich when the whole court (Anne included) would have been recorded to be at Eltham instead or something like that.
The complete disregard for the semblance of truth and accuracy because everyone putting the case together knew it was a sham but still knew Anne would be destroyed by the end so it didn't matter anyway. Cromwell YOU BITCH YOU BETTER COUNT YOUR FUCKING DAYS
George Boleyn surprise favorite?? I'm obsessed with the way he (and Anne) defended themselves in court
Henry VIII when I catch you it is OVER for you
Henry VIII mommy issues?? Lmao okay loser lol go cry to your mommy about every single woman in your family is better than you loser (sorry Elizabeth of York ily but not your son)
Katherine of Aragon proves herself over and over again to be such a badass the more I hear about her, and I really appreciate how even though this book was about Anne and Henry, it didn't tear Katherine down and instead attested to her mettle and strength of character.
Actually, this book in general does a good job of providing a well-balanced view of both Henry and Anne and how they could do both good and bad things
Now THAT is how you end a book.
I think this book got more interesting the closer it got to the end
Okay so the fact that Anne and her framed lover's liaisons didn't even line up with where the court was at the time MAKES ME SO MAD. So for instance Cromwell's record would say that Anne met with her lover on x date in Greenwich when the whole court (Anne included) would have been recorded to be at Eltham instead or something like that.
The complete disregard for the semblance of truth and accuracy because everyone putting the case together knew it was a sham but still knew Anne would be destroyed by the end so it didn't matter anyway. Cromwell YOU BITCH YOU BETTER COUNT YOUR FUCKING DAYS
George Boleyn surprise favorite?? I'm obsessed with the way he (and Anne) defended themselves in court
Henry VIII when I catch you it is OVER for you
Henry VIII mommy issues?? Lmao okay loser lol go cry to your mommy about every single woman in your family is better than you loser (sorry Elizabeth of York ily but not your son)
Katherine of Aragon proves herself over and over again to be such a badass the more I hear about her, and I really appreciate how even though this book was about Anne and Henry, it didn't tear Katherine down and instead attested to her mettle and strength of character.
Actually, this book in general does a good job of providing a well-balanced view of both Henry and Anne and how they could do both good and bad things
February 16, 2024
I had high hopes for this one, having read a few excellent historical biographies lately, but was disappointed in how much recounting, rather than analysis, these authors do. They do some due diligence in tracking down sources and challenging interpretations of existing sources (especially primary ones) but overall don’t offer much that’s new to the story of Henry VIII and Anne. I guess I expected something closer to Heather Clark’s biography on Sylvia Plath, where she reconstructs the narrative of Sylvia’s life and sets aside popular belief about her work to arrive at her own conclusions. In fairness the source material for Anne Boleyn is sparse compared to Sylvia Plath, but the authors do very little to question long held beliefs about Anne’s life, personality, and ambition. There is also disappointingly little analysis about the moment in time, and the significance of their marriage in shaping Europe. The authors leave it up to lines like “The English Reformation wouldn’t have happened were it not for Anne Boleyn and her daughter Elizabeth.” I wanted the authors to zoom out of the recounting of events and challenge themselves to ask big questions, but instead got far too many details about the prices of luxury fabrics and palace renovations. I get it, royalty indulged to their excess, but what about analysis or comparison to the English people? How was this perceived? In short, too much of the “what” and not nearly enough of the “so what” in this book.
June 22, 2024
'Hunting the Falcon' is a sprawling, scrupulously researched and totally engrossing study of one of the most consequential marriages in history, if not the most consequential. Fox and Guy give a thorough background to the relationship, especially Anne Boleyn's early years and education, and clearly set out to place her marriage to Henry VIII, and subsequent fall, within the wider context of European power politics, rather than concentrating solely on the English court. This gives the reader a quite different, and much broader, perspective than is often the case.
The authors clearly display a lot of sympathy for Anne, and admire her courage and intellect, but they are generally pretty fair to all players involved in the drama and don't obviously take one side or the other. Good portrayal of Imperial Ambassador Chapuys in particular.
This book is perhaps a bit long and somewhat scholarly in tone, so not the best choice for those new to the subject matter, but for seasoned 'Henry and Anne' fans, 'Hunting the Falcon' is an absorbing read and well worth your time.
Four stars.
The authors clearly display a lot of sympathy for Anne, and admire her courage and intellect, but they are generally pretty fair to all players involved in the drama and don't obviously take one side or the other. Good portrayal of Imperial Ambassador Chapuys in particular.
This book is perhaps a bit long and somewhat scholarly in tone, so not the best choice for those new to the subject matter, but for seasoned 'Henry and Anne' fans, 'Hunting the Falcon' is an absorbing read and well worth your time.
Four stars.
April 19, 2024
I wasn’t expecting to gain such a new perspective on a story I was so familiar with.
Learning about Anne’s time in France in the courts of Queen Claude and Marguerite of Angoulême and how the informed her later Queenship was equally interesting and heartbreaking.
The politics between Francis I and Charles, the holy Roman emperor added new insight into Henry’s break with the Church and how fragile it all was.
If Anne wasn’t coming in behind Katherine, she could have been a great Queen in her own right.
The last chapters covering the arrest, trial and execution did justice to the horror of the situation. Especially the sections chronicling Anne’s manic highs and lows that were reported back to Cromwell.
Although she’s not really a character in this book—but it needs to be said. Poor Katherine Howard!!!
I feel like there was nothing more terrifying to a young, pretty unmarried woman in Tudor court than attracting the King’s attention.
Learning about Anne’s time in France in the courts of Queen Claude and Marguerite of Angoulême and how the informed her later Queenship was equally interesting and heartbreaking.
The politics between Francis I and Charles, the holy Roman emperor added new insight into Henry’s break with the Church and how fragile it all was.
If Anne wasn’t coming in behind Katherine, she could have been a great Queen in her own right.
The last chapters covering the arrest, trial and execution did justice to the horror of the situation. Especially the sections chronicling Anne’s manic highs and lows that were reported back to Cromwell.
Although she’s not really a character in this book—but it needs to be said. Poor Katherine Howard!!!
I feel like there was nothing more terrifying to a young, pretty unmarried woman in Tudor court than attracting the King’s attention.
May 31, 2024
Overall: 4 stars
This a Boleyn-nerd's Anne Boleyn book. I think it would be fine as someone not familiar with Boleyn's life in-depth, but the authors here are really assuming some prior knowledge of Boleyn historiography when they reference existing theories or previous historians, so you'd miss out on those moments.
As a Tudor and Boleyn nerd, I really appreciated this book's deep-dive analysis into sources, examining their validity and relevance, as well as the addition of "new" manuscripts that I hadn't heard of before.
Where I also think this book excels is its explanation and exploration of Henry VIII and Anne's personalities and how their character flaws led to Anne's fall/being framed. The book doesn't blame Anne for what happened to her, of course, but it does explain well how her past behavior and personality made it easier for Cromwell and company to get away with pinning preposterous accusations of treason and adultery on her.
This is a great Boelyn biography for Tudor nerds, and I definitely recommend it if you've read some of the older bios and still want more.
This a Boleyn-nerd's Anne Boleyn book. I think it would be fine as someone not familiar with Boleyn's life in-depth, but the authors here are really assuming some prior knowledge of Boleyn historiography when they reference existing theories or previous historians, so you'd miss out on those moments.
As a Tudor and Boleyn nerd, I really appreciated this book's deep-dive analysis into sources, examining their validity and relevance, as well as the addition of "new" manuscripts that I hadn't heard of before.
Where I also think this book excels is its explanation and exploration of Henry VIII and Anne's personalities and how their character flaws led to Anne's fall/being framed. The book doesn't blame Anne for what happened to her, of course, but it does explain well how her past behavior and personality made it easier for Cromwell and company to get away with pinning preposterous accusations of treason and adultery on her.
This is a great Boelyn biography for Tudor nerds, and I definitely recommend it if you've read some of the older bios and still want more.
January 25, 2024
Pulls you in like a novel, then delivers a well researched treatise on the dangers of power and patriarchy. An excellent read.
December 19, 2023
I've read an untold amount of biographies about The Tudors and specifically Queen Anne Boleyn over the last few decades. I personally wouldn't call this one "groundbreaking", but it is a very high quality biography on the subject with tons of detail and obviously well-researched. At almost 800 pages, it is a mammoth undertaking, although at 65% (post Anne Boleyn execution) there is an Epilogue, Acknowledgements, and multiple Appendix entries and notes expounding on various topics in the book. If you've never read about this topic and really want to dig into the subject, this would be an excellent choice.
December 27, 2023
oh my expectations were high....obviously too high. I opened this book expecting it to give some new detail, new perspective....something to blow all Anne was a manipulative women story out of the window....
but no! This heavy going and heavy to hold book offered me nothing i had not read or heard via podcasts.
It is a complex book - which does not seen to flow and overwhelms the reader with fact and reference after fact and reference - and provides no new perspective on this woman who has been scapegoated by a patriarchal rule, law and church.
but no! This heavy going and heavy to hold book offered me nothing i had not read or heard via podcasts.
It is a complex book - which does not seen to flow and overwhelms the reader with fact and reference after fact and reference - and provides no new perspective on this woman who has been scapegoated by a patriarchal rule, law and church.
September 24, 2024
Given this is a non-fiction book packed with a lot of dates and historical information it took a while longer to read in order to absorb all of the detailed facts.
It's a good book for anyone interested in the history of the Tudor period, particularly of Henry VIII and his many wives.
Anne Boleyn was an interesting person in her own right with a rich and detailed history, including a French education which at the time was controversial within some social circles.
I enjoyed finding out more about who she was and the nefarious machinations that were constructed around her to justify her beheading. It was both enlightening and also terrifying how easy it was to fabricate reasons for her death.
It's a good book for anyone interested in the history of the Tudor period, particularly of Henry VIII and his many wives.
Anne Boleyn was an interesting person in her own right with a rich and detailed history, including a French education which at the time was controversial within some social circles.
I enjoyed finding out more about who she was and the nefarious machinations that were constructed around her to justify her beheading. It was both enlightening and also terrifying how easy it was to fabricate reasons for her death.
January 18, 2024
I’d forgotten what a joy it was to be fully immersed in some good old historical non fiction, especially when it’s about all the drama of the Tudor court. This was the perfect amount of solid factual information and interesting analysis woven in to a compelling and complex narrative. I’ve always found Anne Boleyn such a beguiling figure, and this book really did her justice. The parts surrounding foreign policy, European politics and religious unrest were just as good. 👌👌🙏👏
February 15, 2024
I have read a lot of Tudor biographies, and this is by far the best. In addition to relatively newly discovered documents that weren’t covered previously, these authors give genuine weight to the actions of women in the 16th century-from Anne and Queen Claude to the women of the English court.
March 22, 2024
Worth the read for those of us who think Anne (and all the wives) have been remembered unfairly. She wasn’t so much a great whore than a woman who dared to wield power at a time when England was not ready for it. Henry was a lil bitch and you can quote me on that.
December 6, 2023
a bit dry in parts but I liked that there was so much about Anne's early life. And the librarian in me LOVES the fact that there are over 100 pages of index, notes, appendices, etc.
January 10, 2024
Fascinating
January 19, 2024
Being an avid consumer of Tudor biographies all my life, I thought I knew everything about Anne of a Thousand Days. This meticulously researched book certainly proved me wrong!
February 21, 2024
Excellent look at one of the most famous couples in history and how their romance (and downfall) changed the world. Loved it.
September 26, 2024
Hated Anne Boleyn before, hate her even more now. She was a meddling home-wrecker, with some good personal qualities who did much for the reformation of the church in England. But let’s just say her chickens came home to roost.
The best quality of this book however is how it places Anne Boleyn’s rise and fall within the context of contemporary European politics. Anne’s rise not only led Henry away from Rome, but closer to France. And her fall presaged a rapprochement with Emperor Charles and the Holy Roman Empire. Henry would never pursue Reformation as far as Anne Boleyn and Thomas Cromwell would have wanted him, but he never did resolve his differences with Rome, and left his crown to a reforming king. Highly recommended!
The best quality of this book however is how it places Anne Boleyn’s rise and fall within the context of contemporary European politics. Anne’s rise not only led Henry away from Rome, but closer to France. And her fall presaged a rapprochement with Emperor Charles and the Holy Roman Empire. Henry would never pursue Reformation as far as Anne Boleyn and Thomas Cromwell would have wanted him, but he never did resolve his differences with Rome, and left his crown to a reforming king. Highly recommended!
February 27, 2024
I am a huge nerd for Anne Boleyn and this was a good bio. The authors did their research and found a bunch of interesting info not in other biographies. Well worth the read.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 193 reviews