[Review] Blood & Beauty by Sarah Dunant

"The more outrage the better. That way people will fear us while we are alive and never -ever- forget us when we are dead"

I think it's a well known fact amongst my readers that I am very picky when it comes to novels about the Borgia family. Given the research I have put into this family and the absolute awe I hold for Cesare - I say again, how many have his personal motto tattooed? - I tend to avoid historical fiction about the Renaissance and in particular the Borgia family. I blame this in part for the travesty that was Kologridis' "The Borgia Bride" and whilst I thoroughly enjoyed Jean Plaidy's novels about Lucrezia, I found them to be somewhat dry towards the end. So it was somewhat hesitantly that I picked up Dunant's latest offering.

And I have to say it was one of the best decisions I have ever made.

From the outset you can tell that Dunant has really put the effort into her research. As I read, I found myself slap bang in the middle of the Borgia apartments in Rome, in the Room of Mysteries with the Pope, with Cesare as he stood before the walls of Ravaldino. And whilst I am aware that this is a work of fiction, I couldn't have been more pleased to see the placing in there of actual historical events. More so the LACK of incest in there pleased me no end. You will all know how against that theory I am, and how I am a firm believer that Cesare and Lucrezia were close, that he loved his sister more than any woman he had ever met but that they never crossed the line. I found this was portrayed excellently in this novel with stolen glances, the odd lingering touch and one kiss that may have gone a bit too far. The awkwardness between the two siblings after that kiss just seeped from the words so I felt as if I felt as physically awkward as Lucrezia did. 

The characterisation of Cesare has to be one of the best that I have ever read. It is well known that Cesare Borgia was temperamental, or "famously bipolar" as I like to call him and this comes across wonderfully in Dunant's writing. From his overly inflated ego to his need from power, to his cold and calculating manner when plotting the downfall of those who had become useless to the family. There were moments when I sat there with a knot in my stomach, hearing Cesare's rants as if I were stood there in the very same room as him. I felt his need for power, his egotistical nature. And there are not many novels that have ever made me feel like that. And if I am honest it was the same with all of the characters in this novel. Particular favourites included Lucrezia (it was SO nice to see her written as she would have been, rather than a scheming poisoning adulteress), Juan and Pope Alexander VI. The work went into the characterisation of these men and women who actually lived all of those years ago. And you could honestly tell.

The only issue I really had was how the ending of the book seemed a little rushed. It would have been nice if more time could have been spent on Cesare's military campaigns in the Romagna. Unfortunately the story ended with Lucrezia leaving to go to Ferrara. We all know that the story goes on and we see the death of Pope Alexander, Cesare's downfall and his heartbreakingly lonely death in Viana, finishing with Lucrezia's death in Ferrara. I can't help but wonder whether Dunant will be writing a follow up to cover these events? I have to say I would love to read a novelisation about Cesare's last years. That really is my only gripe if I am honest. It just left me wanting MORE!

If you are a lover of Renaissance and Borgia history then I urge you to pick up this book. Fantastically written, excellent characterisation and a complete page turner. I shall certainly be picking up more of Dunant's works!

Review: The Chalice by Nancy Bilyeau

In the next novel from Nancy Bilyeau after her acclaimed debut The Crown, novice Joanna Stafford plunges into an even more dangerous conspiracy as she comes up against some of the most powerful men of her era. In 1538, England is in the midst of bloody power struggles between crown and cross that threaten to tear the country apart. Joanna Stafford has seen what lies inside the king’s torture rooms and risks imprisonment again, when she is caught up in a shadowy international plot targeting the King. As the power plays turn vicious, Joanna understands she may have to assume her role in a prophecy foretold by three different seers, each more omniscient than the last. Joanna realises the life of Henry VIII as well as the future of Christendom are in her hands—hands that must someday hold the chalice that lays at the centre of these deadly prophecies…

A while ago I read Bilyeau's debut novel "The Crown" and was hugely impressed, which was a bit of a big thing for someone who was suffering with Tudor Fatigue. So when I was approached to review her second book, I jumped at the chance. The Chalice follows on with Joanna Stafford's story, and is set during the torrid period of the Reformation.

I don't want to give too much away and spoil the story for people (because if there's one thing I myself don't like, it's spoilers!), but Joanna finds herself involved in yet more conspiracies to try and bring the True Faith back to England. It involves visits to famous seers - and I will mention just one name; Sister Elizabeth Barton - and yet again prophecy plays a huge role in the story. It really is a story full of both political and religious twists which prove for riveting reading. We see the return of characters we have both loved (Joanna Stafford, the monks and nuns of Dartford priory and everyone's favourite constable, Geoffrey) and hated (Gardiner) as well as many new faces including Catherine Howard!

As in The Crown, Bilyeau's writing style means that the story reads almost flawlessly. The narrative really makes the reader throw themselves into the story, and makes it so the book is really difficult to put down. I was really very impressed with Bilyeau's writing (As I was in The Crown), and honestly can't recommend this book highly enough. There is just one thing about the story that really niggled me though, and that was the constant mention of the Borgias and their poisoning technique - as it would do, considering as how that family are my specialism and I'm always found fighting their corner - it was really difficult for me to put myself in the situation that those in the sixteenth century would have been in. Anti-Borgia propaganda would have been prevalent back then, and the myths that the family were corrupt poisoners would have been rife. Still, every mention of their evil riled me up a little (a lot), but I can let it pass given how people would have thought back then (I know its a niggly point, but I can't help it).

All in all, an absolutely fantastic read and one I would wholeheartedly recommend! Please do check it out! I'll be looking out for her next book with interest!

The Chalice can be found on Amazon UK and Amazon US.

Please do follow Nancy on twitter, and also check out her website.

Review: The Borgias - The Hidden History by G.J. Meyer

They burst out of obscurity in Spain not only to capture the great prize of the papacy, but to do so twice. Throughout a tumultuous half-century—as popes, statesmen, warriors, lovers, and breathtakingly ambitious political adventurers—they held centre stage in the glorious and blood-drenched pageant known to us as the Italian Renaissance, standing at the epicentre of the power games in which Europe’s kings and Italy’s warlords gambled for life-and-death stakes. Five centuries after their fall—a fall even more sudden than their rise to the heights of power—they remain immutable symbols of the depths to which humanity can descend: Rodrigo, the Borgia who bought the papal crown and prostituted the Roman Church; Cesare, the Borgia who became first a teenage cardinal and then the most treacherous cutthroat of a violent time; Lucrezia, the Borgia as shockingly immoral as she was beautiful. These have long been stock figures in the dark chronicle of European villainy, their name synonymous with unspeakable evil. But did these Borgias of legend actually exist? Grounding his narrative in exhaustive research and drawing from rarely examined key sources, Meyer brings fascinating new insight to the real people within the age-encrusted myth. Equally illuminating is the light he shines on the brilliant circles in which the Borgias moved and the thrilling era they helped to shape, a time of wars and political convulsions that reverberate to the present day, when Western civilisation simultaneously wallowed in appalling brutality and soared to extraordinary heights.

I received this book as a pre-release copy, for review purposed and so as a first port of call I would like to let you all know that when this book becomes available on 2nd April, if you are interested in the history of the Borgia family, you all need to purchase it. If I'm honest, my whole review could be summed up in those first few lines. This book is utterly fantastic, and offers a brand new approach to much of what we thought we knew about the Borgia family. In fact, it really makes you rethink much of what we have come to know and trust about the family's history.

Of course, as a pre-release copy, I was expecting to find a few mistakes and I would like to get these out of the way before I launch into how amazing I thought the book was. But to be honest, there really wasn't that many mistakes - the only mistakes I really noticed were a few date discrepancies at around the 6% mark (I had a kindle copy) in which instead of dates reading "14xx" when speaking about Alonso De Borja, they read "15xx". Easily fixed, but could easily be fixed with a bit of proof reading. There were also a couple of grammatical errors that made me have to reread a few sentences a couple of times, but for the most part this can be easily looked over as a reader and doesn't deviate much from the reading experience.

For the most part though, Meyer's writing is fluid and provides a very easy read. As I was reading, it really didn't feel like a non fiction book to me. But then, I have read much heavier tomes than this. Meyers writing is so fluid that at times it really did read like a novel to me, but at the same time I could really see the amount of research that he did into his work. His writing style really did make the story of the Borgia family - from Alonso De Borja right up until the fantastic Saint Francis Borgia - utterly accessible. Easy reading, and doesn't overload the reader with too much politics - although given the era, politics is really a given.

The book itself concentrates on the history of the Borgia family, history's most notorious dynasty, and works its way up from the first Borgia Pope - Pope Calixtus III - right up until the end of the dynasty proper with Lucrezia. As a history that spans well over a century, if not longer (taking into account the varied relatives, particularly of Juan Borgia) it can get quite confusing but thankfully Meyer splits it into very easy sections. You have chapters relating to each family member and what they did, followed by mini chapters which give a great background to what else was going on at the time. I thought this was a really good idea, and gives the reader a bit of context into the political background of the era. There was one sub chapter in particular that really grabbed my attention, and it addressed the apparently paternity of Cesare, Juan and Lucrezia Borgia - I won't go too much into it here as there will be a separate blog post coming but let's just say Meyer's findings are incredibly interesting, and very convincing!

In all then an incredibly interesting and quite frankly brilliant read, and one I would wholeheartedly recommend to anyone interested in learning about the history of this fascinating family. An inherently interesting read that offers a brand new insight into this wonderful family, and one that discusses (and quite frankly, disinherits) most of the disgusting rumours of this brilliant family! A must read for anyone interested!

The Borgias: The Hidden History is available right now for pre-order from Amazon UK and Amazon US - Please do pick it up if you can!

The Prince - Niccolo Machiavelli

I've had this sitting on my shelf for a while and never really gotten around to reading it until now. Honestly, I wish I'd sat down and read it before because this book is an absolute masterpiece. But first a little bit of background. The author of this work is one Niccolo Machiavelli, a Florentine diplomat and politician from the fifteenth century, born in 1469 and contemporary to such Renaissance greats as Lorenzo de Medici, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (more on him soon!) and Cesare Borgia. The Prince is a political treatise written by Machiavelli in around 1513 after his imprisonment and torture, which he began when he went into retirement at his farm near San Casciano. Shortly after his retirement here, in around 1520 he was commissioned to write a history of Florence by Cardinal Giovanni de Medici (later Pope Leo X) which was finished in 1525. Machiavelli died shortly after this, after a very brief return to public life, in 1527.

And so to this extraordinary work. I will be clear from the outset, The Prince is certainly not all kittens and rainbows. Far from it. It is in fact an essay on how a Prince should act to gain loyalty and keep it. He lists all the good points that Prince must have to gain his loyalty but then turns around and gives a list of points when a Prince must resort to cruelty to keep said loyalty; and he gives examples of both past and present (at least his contemporary) rulers and princes to back these points up. When this treatise was published (at least in the Penguin Classics version) it includes a letter of dedication to Lorenzo De Medici, aka "Il Magnifico" which states that:

"So, Your Magnificence, take this little gift in the spirit of which I send it; and if you read and consider it diligently, you will discover in it my urgent wish that you reach the eminence that fortune and your other qualities promise you."

When I read the Penguin Classics copy, I wondered how on earth Lorenzo could have dedicated the book to Lorenzo. Lorenzo de Medici when the man died in 1492. This comes across as a printing mistake, and it is more likely that Machiavelli dedicated it to Lorenzo de Piero de Medici, Pope Leo X's nephew and grandson of Lorenzo the Magnifence. 

The book itself, as previously mentioned is his summary of how Princes can gain and keep their power. And the great thing about this book is that Machiavelli bases his treatise on first hand experience. Many of his contemporary examples come from men who he has met in his own life and there is one man who crops up time and time again:

Cesare Borgia.

Cesare Borgia, son of Pope Alexander VI, would have been a well known entity to Machiavelli. During his life time, Machiavelli met and dealt with Cesare on many occasions and, it seems to me at the very least, held a hell of a lot of respect for Cesare Borgia. Machiavelli mentions Cesare at many points during his work and uses his example to justify his points. And throughout his work he makes the point that it is better for a man to be a risk taker to gain popularity, and also that if popularity is not gained then he should be a risk taker to remain respect. Cesare is used throughout the work to make this point.

"I will never fear to cite Cesare Borgia and his actions. The duke entered Romagna with auxiliary arms, leading wholly French troops, and with these he took Imola and Forlì. But, such arms not seeming secure to him, he turned to the mercenary ones, judging that there be less danger in them, and engaged both the Orsini and the Vitelli. Later, managing and finding them doubtful, unfaithful, and dangerous, he extinguished them and turned to his own. And one can easily see the difference between these arms, considering the difference between the duke's reputation, when he had only the French and when he had Orsini and Vitelli, and when he was left with his own soldiers and on his own: and always one will find it increased; never was he so esteemed as when everyone saw that he was the total owner of his arms"

Throughout the book you get constant mentions of Cesare and the method of "criminal virtue" that he used to gain his power. Alas, Machiavelli also mentions that Cesare - despite his brilliant methods of gaining and keeping power (such as taking the towns of the Romagna and taking power easily because the people hating their leaders) - failed because of a few very simple reasons; the death of his father Pope Alexander VI, and his trusting in the new Pope Julius II. Such a shame, had Cesare not trusted in Julis then he could have gone on and ruled the Romagna. Alas, his failure lead to his imprisonment and eventual death.

Of course, Machiavelli doesn't always use Cesare's example. Just most of the time. He also uses examples of other Italian rulers such as Caterina Sforza and also rulers from history - listing in turn what they did right and the methods that made them fall. And as I said earlier, he doesn't make it all kittens and rainbows. Oh no, he is really quite blunt with his conclusions. And for that I love him.

There is one other thing I want to mention before I wrap this review up - Machiavelli's "Prince" really did away with the morality of the time and pretty much gave instructions to those from his own time (and ours) of how to gain absolute power. Because of this, the man came to be thought of an an instrument of the devil. When you hear the phrase "Machiavellian tragedy" from Jacobean drama, this is what it points to - someone who endeavours to take absolute power, and because of this the man (despite his brilliance) was for a very long time regarded as an agent of the devil. Reading it myself however, I wonder why people thought this of him because his work makes a lot of sense to me - he recognised the complicated nature of the political life of the time and realised that life wasn't all kittens and rainbows. Machiavelli certainly was a man before his time, and I defy anyone to read this and reject his statements as his words reflect even to our present life.

The man was a genius, despite his own flaws, and his works should in my opinion be read by every one. It really is a masterpiece and a must read for anyone interest in the political happenings of Renaissance Italy.

Review: Death in Florence by Paul Strathern

I picked this book up on a bit of a whim when I was off sick from work. I'd had a really rough couple of weeks and needed cheering up. Plus, I adore Paul Strathern's work on the Medici and thought his book on Cesare Borgia, Leonardo Da Vinci and Niccolo Machiavelli was top notch. When I saw this beauty on Amazon for less than a tenner I knew I just had to have it. I have to say that this book has also proven to be a rather excellent bible when it has come to working on my book. But anyway, I digress. I should be reviewing this book and not gushing about how it's been awesome for my own research.

Anyway, from the moment this tome of a book arrived I devoured it. The book, in a nutshell, tells the story of Girolamo Savonarola - right from his early years up until his rather grisly death. Mixed in with that you have the stories of Lorenzo de Medici's death, Piero de Medici's flight from Florence (he never returned) and Charles VIII and his relationship with the Dominican friar. Right from the first sentence I was hooked, Strathern's writing style certainly doesn't fail to disappoint. He writes with an amazing fluidity and tells these most fascinating stories in an exceptional manner yet retaining that academic manner that makes his books so readable. 

What surprised me when I was reading this was how much was going on in the background of Savonarola's life, and how his life was so interconnected with the politics of the day. For instance, Girolamo decided to become a friar at a time when Ferrara was going to war with other Italian states. He also paid exceedingly close attention to Charles VIII of France and his invasion of Italy, even going as far as to meet up with Charles and convince the deformed little man that he would be the scourge of Italy. Sadly, Charles let him down and didn't prove that he would be the "New Cyrus" but Savonarola also kept abreast of political goings on in Florence and also had a close say in the new government after Piero de Medici's flight. And Strathern did a wonderful job of interweaving everything so the story ran smoothly, it was so interesting reading how Savonarola's life and work mixed in with everything else that was going on. It really was such an intricate web of politics at that time that it could have been so easy to make the story dry and boring, but Strathern did a really good job of telling the stories in an engaging manner.

Superbly written and engaging, I don't want to go into too much detail as you really need to read this book to understand that it really is a masterpiece. I'll say it til the cows come home, Paul Strathern is one of my favourite Renaissance historians (next to Christopher Hibbert) and he's just fantastic. Of course his works aren't perfect, but this one is as close to perfect as you can get. Highly recommended to anyone interested in the history of Renaissance Italy and in particularly, Renaissance Florence.

Review - The Bad Popes by Russell Chamberlin

Each of the Popes considered in this book, from the gentle hermit pope Celestine V to the degenerate Rodrigo Borgia and the emperor pope Boniface VIII shared one heavy burden. They were not only the spiritual leaders of Europe but, through an audacious forgery (the so called Donation of Constantine), they were also territorial princes - 'papal monarchs' - struggling to maintain control over an enormous section of Italy. The careers of these popes demonstrate the disastrous effect of combining religion and politics and led at last to the event which ends this book - the Sack of Rome in 1527. Brought about by the inept attempts of Pope Clement VIV against his rival the King of France, the culmination was the sacking of the Eternal City by 20,000 starving, pitiless mercenaries. It was the end of an era.

Ever since I first started reading about the Borgia family, I have found myself becoming more and more interested in the history of the Roman Catholic church. And more so the history of the corrupt Popes from history. So when I saw this book I knew I just had to have it. And I'm glad I did. 

This book starts with an introduction to Rome and the Papacy and describes briefly the Donation of Constantine, which was a forged document giving the Pope of Rome the principality of the Papal states. I won't go too much into what it is and what it did here as it would have to be a whole other blog post. Once the introduction is out of the way Chamberlin then goes on to describe in detail the lives and careers of Rome's most corrupt and decadent popes. Of course Chamberlin does not tell us about each and every Pope as that would just be a bit too much but rather has picked out a selection of those Popes with probably the worst reputations in the history of the Catholic Church. The thing I liked about this though was that Chamberlin doesn't bash the Popes for their behaviour, far from it. Instead he gives an incredibly balanced view of things, and tells the reader of each Popes pluses and minuses, showing how they can go from quite pious and agreeable men, to sheer corruption and it really allows you to draw your own conclusions.

The book itself runs from the early popes in the Theophylact family, who reigned from 926-1046 right up until the sack of Rome in 1527. That is a huge amount of ground to cover yet Chamberlin does a great job in giving the reader the information that they need about each Pope being looked at. Of course, not every aspect can be written about, as that would end up as an entire library. But Chamberlin makes his point, expands on it and covers it in a brilliantly snappy manner that doesn't leave you feeling as if you've swallowed an encyclopedia. And it works.

Of course, my favourite section of the book was on the infamous Rodrigo Borgia who is often seen as the most corrupt Pope in history. Yet the section on him retains a balanced view, and you really get a sense that Rodrigo Borgia wasn't really all that bad. Chamberlin also gives Cesare Borgia the benefit of the doubt too, and while he admits that Cesare wasn't the nicest man in the world, he says he was "probably innocent" of his brothers murder. And this made me smile quite a lot. I must admit that I found the later sections of the book more interesting than the earlier Popes, probably because my area of interest is from the 15th Century onwards, so I did really enjoy the chapters on Alexander VI (Borgia), Julius II (Della Rovere) and the Medici popes. And whilst the chapters give you a fantastic overview of their good points and bad points, it has also given me a thirst to know more about these other Papal monarchs too. And so, I feel incredibly sorry for both my purse and my bookcase!

All in all a fantastic book and highly recommended, especially if you are interested in the history of the Roman Catholic Church and learning a bit more about those Popes who have gone down in history as the worst of the worst.

A Rip In The Veil by Anna Belfrage

On a muggy August day in 2002 Alexandra Lind is inexplicably thrown several centuries backwards in time to 1658. Life will never be the same for Alex. Alex lands at the feet of Matthew Graham - an escaped convict making his way home to Scotland. She gawks at this tall, gaunt man with hazel eyes, dressed in what looks like rags. At first she thinks he might be some sort of hermit, an oddball, but she quickly realises that she is the odd one out. Catapulted from a life of modern comfort, Alex grapples with her frightening new existence. Potential compensation for this brutal shift in fate comes in the shape of Matthew - a man she should never have met, not when she was born three centuries after him. But Matthew comes with baggage of his own and at times it seems his past will see them killed.

Having just finished this book, I can safely say that it is not the type of book that I would normally read. Rather, this is a book I would take on holiday with me to read on the beach whilst huddling under an umbrella to keep the sun away from me. I don't really like beaches you see, and have to take a book with me to keep myself from getting bored beyond measure. However, although it's not normally a book I would read, I should say that I did rather enjoy it and in particular because the story was set in the seventeenth century.

The story itself is your basic time slip concept - modern woman finds herself inexplicably thrown back in time and spends most of the first few chapters confused about where the hell she is and what the hell should she be doing. The heroine, Alex Lind, was likeable enough and I did rather like how she kept confusing people by talking about modern stuff. I was however a little disappointed that the hero of the story, Matthew Graham, didn't make a very big deal out of the fact that Alex had come from the future when she told him, just giving her a hug and doing a sneaky sign against the evil eye behind her back. Of course, witchcraft was mentioned rather a lot during the story from various other characters including the main "bad guy" Hector Olivares and Matthew's nasty piece of work brother, Luke. With Luke, I felt like his story was one of the more interesting ones - caught in bed with his fathers ward at the age of 15 he ends up being kicked out of the family home, Matthew ends up marrying the girl and ends up catching her back in bed with his brother. Said ward, by the name of Margaret, is the spitting image of Alex - although this point wasn't really expanded upon as much as I would have liked. The hatred between the two brothers is a huge part of the story and it all ends up getting rather messy.

As I read through the book, it seemed to me as if the plot centred mainly on the life lead by the people in the little town and those who lived in the manor house where Matthew (eventually) lives. I say eventually because about half of the book is made up of Alex and Matthew in the wilderness, running away from soldiers who are intent on capturing them both. Occasionally hints are dropped of the wider historical context - the death of Oliver Cromwell, George Monk helping to bring Charles II back, the issue of religion during the seventeenth century. I liked these little snippets of context and I feel that the time spent on the context was probably about right - Matthew fought in the English Civil Wars for Parliament, believed wholeheartedly in the commonwealth and becomes worried when he hears that the Protector is dead and wonders whether Charles Stuart will allow religious freedom. The snippets were good, and added to the story rather than detracted from it.

The narrative was written well, and really quite descriptive. I could imagine the hustle and bustle of Matthew's household, could imagine the dirty and smelly towns, could imagine the infested taverns and dark looks of the clientele who frequented them. There was just one thing about the narrative that got to me, and that was the constant finishing of sentences with the word no, and then turning it into a question:

"And it would be the one gift, no?"
"I told you no? Unless you clean them they rot and fall out"
"Get over it? You held her against her will, no?"

All in all though, a good read and perfect if you want to escape from reality for a little while. Likeable characters and a story set in a time that was far from easy, it's really rather easy to find yourself wondering how you would act were you in Alex's shoes. I would recommend this book to anyone who likes a bit of a historical fiction, but doesn't want to get stuck into something too heavy.

A massive thank you to Anne Belfrage for sending me this book to review. You can visit Anna's website here. And you can pick up a copy of A Rip In The Veil at Amazon UK and Amazon US

The Monmouth Summer by Tim Vicary

1685. King Charles II dies unexpectedly, and is succeeded by his brother James II, England's first Catholic monarch since Bloody Mary. English Protestants feel threatened, and King Charles’s illegitimate son, the handsome young duke of Monmouth, rises against his uncle in armed rebellion. The rebellion turns young Ann Carter’s world upside down. Eighteen years old, she is betrothed to Tom Goodchild, a Protestant shoemaker; but secretly loves Robert Pole, an officer in King James’s army, who offers to take her to London as his mistress. Ann knows it is her duty to marry Tom, but does not love him; so when he marches away with the rebels, she imagines him being killed – which would set her free. But she knows such thoughts are wicked; her father is a rebel soldier too, like all the men of her village. So who should she pray for, when musket balls start to fly? What matters most – love or loyalty?

When I was asked to review this book, I jumped at the chance. As readers of this blog will know I have a bit of a thing for all things Seventeenth Century (despite having not really done much on it recently...), and a book set in the midst of the 1685 West Country Rebellion seemed like my perfect historical novel. Now I've said in before, and I'll say it again - I'm not a big fan of historical fiction; but this turned out to be one book that was the exception to the rule. In a nutshell, I thought that this book was a masterpiece. My love of the Seventeenth Century includes pretty much everything from James I onwards, but I have a particular love of the English Civil Wars, Restoration and more recently, Monmouth's rebellion in 1685. Over the past year or so I have been devouring non fiction books on James Duke of Monmouth and his rebellion; and it also helps having grown up near many of the towns featured in both the historical rebellion, and this novel. And from the get-go, I devoured this book.

Vicary's writing style is second to none in this book. From the very first page, as we are introduced to the people of Colyton, and in particular the Carter family, the world in which the characters live in seems to burst from the page and come alive. Vicary weaves his prose together masterfully, and as I read I could quite clearly imagine the scenes being described. And as the story began to pick up pace, and the rebel armies of the Duke of Monmouth began to clash with the Royalist troops, it was as if I could hear the musket shots in my ears. It's not often that a book does this to me, and when it happens it is a real breath of fresh air. As I was reading through however, I did notice a couple of odd grammar mistakes such as full stops in random places throughout the sentences, but I can overlook this as it wasn't blindingly noticeable. As well as this, I really loved the way the Vicary made his characters speak. The town where the story is mainly set, Colyton, is a real town located in East Devon; and throughout the prose, the characters speak in a west country accent. And Vicary makes this clearer by having the characters actually speak as those in the West Country did (and still do for the most part!):

"Good day Mr Carter! Sorry 'bout Methuselah! Come here Methuselah, you stupid beast! You'm scarin' they 'orses!"

Almost all of the characters spoke like this throughout the story, and it really endeared many of them to me. It's little things like this that can change a book from a good book, to an excellent one.

As I mentioned previously, the story follows the inhabitants of Colyton (a fun fact: known as the most rebellious town in Devon due to their part in the Monmouth rebellion) as they hear of King Charles II's bastard son coming back from overseas to try and take the throne back from his Catholic uncle, James II. The main character of the story is Ann Carter, a young lady born to a good Puritan family, and she is betrothed to Tom Goodchild. The problem for Ann however is that she is secretly in love with Robert Pole, second son of the local Lord and a supporter of King James. Ann finds herself torn as the men of her village march off to war (including her father) and to fight for the Duke of Monmouth. She is betrothed to marry Tom, who she does not love; yet in love with a man who her father would likely end up meeting on the field of battle. The character of Ann is an interesting one and throughout the narrative you can really see how desperate she is to break free of the ties that bind her to the village and to see the bigger picture. So much so she finds herself highly tempted when Robert offers to take her to London as his mistress. And you can see this throughout the entire story - she fights to stay true to her family's wishes, to marry Tom and remain true to her faith yet at the same time delights in escaping the village and travelling with the army. And yet despite this new found freedom she finds herself entangled in a life where she must face life or death decisions and finds out that the world is not one to be viewed through rose tinted glasses.

I was incredibly pleased also with the amount of research that went into this book. As a bit of a seventeenth century nut (who, to my shame, was in the Sealed Knot at one point as a musketeer), I was paying quite close attention to the description of the battles, and the musket drill. And it was spot on. And even though I was only ever in a pike block once in my time with the knot (and was rather drunk at the time, thanks for that Nantwich!), I couldn't see any issues with the pike drill being described in the story either.

All in all, a fantastic story right from the get-go that includes some of the most names and faces of the Seventeenth Century - Prince Rupert, Judge Jeffries and the Battle of Sedgemoor. I would highly recommend this book to anyone interested in the Seventeenth Century and looking to read a well researched, action packed story of an incredibly famous rebellion in English history.

You can pick up Tim Vicay's novel from Amazon UK and Amazon US for kindle.

Review: The Sickly Stuarts by Frederick Holmes

It's been ages since I've posted a book review on here so I thought I would delight you all and post one. I will warn you now that this review may end up with me yelling about how much I love the Stuart family and how much I want to hug them all. But I'll try not to do that.

So, this book came through my letterbox yesterday morning, and I read the entire thing in a day. Whenever this has happened previously it's because the books have been really pants. This one was however, rather good. I'd spotted Holmes' book in the shop at Hampton Court before and kept wondering whether to pick it up or not, but if I'm honest it was the price that put me off. Then I found it on amazon, nice and cheap. And so when my ex library copy arrived, I settled down to read about the medical problems of my favourite historical family. And let me tell you, I learnt a lot, especially about the Stuart monarchs who I don't know all that much about.

Holmes splits the book up into each monarch that ruled throughout the Stuart era, with one chapter that concentrated on the children of Charles I. But before Holmes gets into the nitty gritty medical history of each monarch we are given a rather good introduction to disease and doctoring in the seventeenth century. This chapter describes how rife disease was in Stuart England, London in particular, and how the ever increasing population affected said disease. We are also given a brief introduction to the various illnesses and epidemics that plagued the populace (including plague...see what I did there? lolol) as well as the various treatments that are given them. Now then, some of these treatments were a little daft, including the "hot and cold method" of treating small pox. There was one part in this introduction that really made me prick my ears up, and that was a brief mention of early methods of diagnosing diabetes (as a type 1 diabetic myself, the history of this disease is hugely fascinating to me):

"In 1694 Thomas Willis was the first to note that the urine of diabetics ‘is wonderfully sweet, like Sugar or hony’"

As I quoted on our tumblr page, this 17th century doctor really has earned my respect and I really like him (even though I don't know all that much about him) because he had the balls the taste a diabetic person's urine. Now that is pretty gross, but it really opened the door for further treatment and even (in some distant way) paved the way for the advent of insulin by Banting and Best in the 1900's. Anyway, I'll shut up about the medical history of diabetes now and get on with reviewing the book. So yeah, after this we are given an introduction to the main doctors of the Seventeenth Century, and these are the men who feature prominently as physicians to the monarchy - Theodore de Mayerne, William Harvey, Thomas Sydenham, Richard Lower, John Radcliffe, Richard Mead and John Arbuthnot.

Following this introduction, Holmes' gets right into the thick of things and begins looking at each Stuart monarch. Of course we start out with James I (VI of Scotland) and Holmes then looks at each monarch in chronological order. The layout of each chapter is exactly the same - we start out with a brief look at their medical history, stuff that made them sick throughout their reign and their death and then goes on to look at their post mortem results to come to a conclusion as to what actually killed them. And as I made my way through each of the chapters, I learnt a lot of stuff that I didn't know about these monarchs.

Of course, Holmes is unable to come to a definitive answer as to the right diagnosis for each monarch but he does a damn good job with the information he had available. Drawing on primary sources and post mortem reports he was able to say "ok then it is super likely that Charles II had this, but not likely at all he had this other thing because the post mortem report says this". And although I'm not trained in medicine, a lot of Holmes' conclusions made a lot of sense. OK so he used some big words for various illnesses, but he also explained what they meant and what the illness was made up of. So yes, good.

Interesting stuff I learnt from this book:

James I had dementia, weak legs and his tongue was too big for his mouth so whenever he drank anything he slobbered it everywhere. He also didn't wash his hands, only dabbed the ends of his fingers.

Charles I had weak legs (inherited from his father), a speech impediment and according to Holmes was a tad delusional (mainly because he was all "lol parliament, I'm the King and I own all so shut up and let me rule on my own).

Charles II was actually pretty healthy until he made a massive derp of himself and conducted mercury experiments without safety gear (but then, was safety gear even invented then?) and gave himself mercury poisoning which killed him.

James II was also a derp, had an epic nosebleed that meant he couldn't fight off William of Orange (later William III, or actually he probably used the nosebleed as an excuse because he couldn't be bothered...maybe). And he died in exile of a stroke and pneumonia.

William III was an epic warrior who invaded England yet was pretty sickly and had asthma and died young because of bacterial pneumonia. His wife, Mary II confused everyone and no one knew whether she died of small pox or measles - at any rate she burned loads of her letters and papers before she died. And it was actually a really bad form of smallpox that killed her.

And last but not least, Anne was never really all that healthy. She survived 17 pregnancies, only 1 child surviving until he died of pneumonia at the age of 11, and eventually it was Lupus that killed her. And she was the last of the Stuart Monarchs...

All in all, an utterly fantastic book and a brilliant read. Some of it is a little complicated and I found myself having to read a few bits a couple of times before the medical terminology sunk in. This is certainly a book I would recommend for anyone interested in the Stuart family. It makes for quite morbid reading, and I won't lie, I did shed a tear at Charles II's death but it is hugely interesting and eye-opening. A good read and highly recommended. 

Review: The Borgia Bride by Jeanne Kalogridis

I've said it time and time again, I tend not to read historical fiction because it normally ends up with me getting very, very angry over it. Now I have read some excellent historical fiction, most recently Hilary Mantel's "Bring Up The Bodies" which I have yet to review, but in my experience the majority of these books are full of huge inaccuracies and are quite frankly rubbish. Now I'm always on the look out for historical fiction that I may enjoy and sometimes do indulge as a bit of guilty pleasure and when I came across "The Borgia Bride" by Jeanne Kalogridis I thought it looked interesting. So I downloaded it to my kindle and began to read.

I wish I hadn't wasted my money.

From the outset I found it a chore to wade through a narrative that did not flow, the sentence structure was awful, the dialogue of the characters was wooden and if I am completely honest, I hated the main character which is a shame because historically Sancia of Naples is a very interesting character. She came across as really one dimensional and OK, so she fought off the Pope when he tried to grope her (in the story that is) but she seemed to fall head over heels in love with Cesare after setting eyes on him only once. Oh, and from what I read of Cesare in this book, he came across as too...too nice. Now then, I was barely able to get half way through this book before I deleted it from my kindle in utter disgust so I have no idea if the author made Cesare more...believable...than he is in the first part of the book and if I'm honest, I don't care.

What I really hated about this book was the fact that the author decided to indulge in the whole incest rumour that haunted the Borgia family. I've written about my views on this over and over again and am firmly in the camp of "The Borgias were not incestuous", and I have never ever seen a single shred of evidence that proves the rumours were true. I felt sick as I read a scene in which Sancia stood watching as Pope Alexander VI slept with his daughter Lucrezia. The scene wasn't graphic, and I honestly don't think the author would know how to write a decent sex scene anyway, but it was what was implied that turned my stomach. At that moment, I put the book down in a rage and vowed to never pick up a book by this author again.

If I'm honest this book may have put me off reading fiction about the Borgia family forever, even though I have heard that there are some very well written fiction books on the family. The thing that bugs me the most is that people these days still believe the incest rumours, and books like this do not help. In the same was that people believe Anne Boleyn had a sexual relationship with her brother thanks to Phillipa Gregory's "The Other Boleyn Girl", this book will only reinforce the public view that the Borgia family were depraved and enjoyed each others company far too much. 

I really hate writing bad reviews of books and always try to give the author the benefit of the doubt but with this one I just can't. If you are interested in the Borgia family I would recommend picking up a decent biography of them before even venturing into the fiction genre. And if you do fancy delving into the fiction of Renaissance Italy, then steer clear of this book. 

Review: The Crown by Nancy Bilyeau

I was kindly sent a copy of this book by the author Nancy Bilyeau and her publishers after winning a giveaway on English Historical Fiction Authors. It arrived on Thursday, and by Friday evening I had finished it - and now I'm not normally one to coin this phrase but I just couldn't put it down. Now you guys know me, I'm not normally one to break into historical fiction if I can help it as more often than not it disappoints me - the only exceptions recently have been Hilary Mantel's "Wolf Hall" and Ken Follet's "Pillars of the Earth" and normally I steer very very clear of Tudor fiction (please see Tired Of The Tudors, and you'll understand why). "The Crown" is Bilyeau's debut novel, and I have to say, she has done a very good job. Whilst the book isn't perfect, with some inaccuracies, the fast paced storyline and exceptionally well developed characters kept me hooked from the first page right until the last. And I have to say it was a much needed break from my heavier non fiction that I've been reading lately.

First of all, the story is set within Dartford priory in Kent, which was the only house of Dominican Nuns in England., and the main character is Sister Joanna, or Joanna Stafford. Joanna is part of a much bigger family unit, related to the executed Duke of Buckingham and family ties to the Duke of Norfolk...and thus also a family connection to Henry VIII! But why do we encounter Stafford in a priory as a Novice? Quite simply, she had agreed to the dying Queen/Dowager Princess of Wales Katherine of Aragon, that she would take vows due to a huge sense of kinship, and her own huge religious faith. I found Stafford a hugely interesting character from the get go, she came across as hugely intelligent and incredibly loyal to her friends. The story is set amongst the dissolution of the monasteries in 1537, an exceptionally turbulent time for England, and after being arrested at the public burning of her cousin, Joanna finds herself embroiled in a quest for a lost Anglo-Saxon artifact. And at the same time, as the story unfolds, we get a sense of how the dissolution affected not only those who were losing their homes but normal people too - there was one part of the book where Joanna was making her way out of the priory (and I'll try not to give away any spoilers) only to be greeted with hostile looks and words. It was incredibly evocative, and I found myself feeling deeply for the characters.

Bilyeau does a fantastic job with her writing too, considering the massive cast of characters in the book and you find herself creating ties to each character for different reasons, even if they are only briefly mentioned. For instance, I found myself particularly to like John the Stable Boy - he was just awesome (and again I won't go into too much detail of why because spoilers) and even with the characters who were the bad guys as it were, I found myself finding parts of them that I liked. The characters were not inherently good or evil, they were just human. And I liked that characterisation. It helped that the narrative was detailed, conveying a believable view of Tudor England, and hugely evocative visions of the frightening Tower of London; yet not too detailed to spend pages and pages talking about what someones shoe looked like (trust me, I've read books like this - and you get bored very quickly!). The story was fast paced and exciting, and it was that as well as the well rounded characters that meant I just could not put it down. Which has to be a good thing right?

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book and cannot thank the author and her publishers enough for sending me a copy. I will certainly be keeping an eye out for further work by this promising author. For anyone who likes Tudor fiction then I definitely recommend picking up this book, particularly if you like historical mysteries, and as I described it to my partner last night "It was like a historical Da Vinci Code only written a lot better, much more exciting, and with better characters...and without anything to do with Da Vinci!". Sums it up nicely I think.

Review: Marie Antoinette by Evelyne Lever

I'm not gonna lie to you guys, I've been struggling to think up stuff to write about. Oh there are plenty of starter ideas, historical people I want to ramble on about but thanks to some rather nasty hours at work I've just been coming home and practically falling into bed. But now it's Friday, and I am now off work for a whole week, so that means plenty of time to write about fun people in history, historical hotties who I have a bit of a crush on or just various historical ramblings about whatever takes my fancy. As I was sat about on my lunch break at work today reading my new book about Prince Rupert, I thought about reviewing the latest book I read about Marie Antoinette but then I thought the review would probably end up in a very long post with me grossly sobbing about how much I love Marie Antoinette and quite frankly how perfect I think she is, and how sad her story is. MadameGuillotine, I totally blame you for this new love (and I regret NOTHING!). But now as I sit here listening to some rather nice music that reminds me at the same time of both Charles II's Restoration Court and the Court at Versailles, I thought I would write it anyway. Gross sobbing or not, you have been warned...

Marie Antoinette: The Last Queen of France by Evelyne Lever is the second book I've ever read on Marie Antoinette, and I have to say I was not disappointed. After reading Antonia Fraser's biography of the ill-fated Queen I found myself hooked, desperate to find out more, desperate to visit the Palace at Versailles. And whilst this new found love is nowhere near as intense as my love for anything Charles I/II related, I have revelled in the fact that new doors have been opened to me and thus I have found new interests. I even sat down and watched Sophia Coppola's 2006 film "Marie Antoinette" starring Kirsten Dunst; and despite realising that it probably wasn't the most historically accurate of films, I thoroughly enjoyed it because it was just so beautiful, and the performances from the actors were just amazing.

Marie Antoinette and Louis XVI in Sophia Coppola's "Marie Antoinette" played by Kirsten Dunst and Jason Schwartzman

First of all, I want to point out that Fraser's biography of Marie Antoinette went into a lot of detail and was a lot thicker than Lever's work. This is not a bad thing, because at time Fraser's work may have become a little dry. That's not to say I didn't love Fraser's love and devour it, because I really did. But with Lever's book I found that I literally could not put it down - and normally I hate that phrase, but I just couldn't. Her writing was snappy, and it gave the information that was needed, yet described enough of Marie Antoinette's life to paint a beautiful portrait in your mind. The snappy writing style also meant that the chapters were not overly long, they got the point across with just enough information to keep you hungry for more. There were points where, even though I was reading a historical biography and academic work, I felt like I was reading a historical novel set in Versailles because Lever managed to pull me into the excesses of the French court with her writing. And it's not often that a book does that to me.

The majority of the book, of course, concentrated in the life of Marie Antoinette leading up to her downfall from her early life up until her family's imprisonment at the Temple in Paris. This of course is to be expected because after the death of her husband Louise XVI her own downfall was exceptionally quick. But through this huge part of the work, we are able to see how Marie Antoinette went from adored Dauphine of France to hated Queen. We also see how she went from a carefree young woman who loved to party to a woman on edge, who hid behind a false smile, and a woman who suffered almost silently from horrific health issues. As I read I often found myself shocked at how Marie Antoinette was treated in her later years as Queen of France - the horrible pamphlets that were published about her so called orgies and her loose living at court; the names she was called. It amazed me that she managed to stay so strong for so long.

When I watched Coppola's movie, and saw that Marie and Louis took so long to consummate their marriage I could barely believe it. 7 years!! But after doing some reading I realised that this was accurate, but the film didn't really explain why it took so long - the shyness of Louis, his psychology of thinking that he was a lesser man than the rest of the court, it all counts and again, I felt very sorry for this young man. Despite being presented with portraits showing a rather handsome young man, Louis in fact was a rather portly young man who waddled rather than walked so was it any wonder that in her younger days the beautiful young Dauphine didn't really make any move towards her husband? She tried of course, and to me it seemed halfheartedly, on the wishes of her mother the Empress Maria-Teresa and it ended up with visits for the Dauphin/King of France visiting his doctor!! Seven years later they finally consummated their marriage much to the joy of the Court and eventually had many children. What really got to me about their relationship was how close they became in their later years, and it seems to me that they really loved each other. Marie Antoinette insisted on staying with her husband throughout the dangers that beset them in their later years and during the beginning of the French Revolution, how he panicked when she took so long to reach their carriage upon escape from the Tuileries and how Louis always stayed loyal to his wife, despite the horrid rumours spreading amongst the populace about her, and about the paternity of her children. It also struck me how after Louis' execution, Marie grieved deeply, and wore mourning clothes for the rest of her life, and how she refused to walk past her husbands old room door in their prison after his execution.

As I mentioned in my review of Fraser's book, the Diamond Necklace Affair really struck me. It was a huge part of Marie Antoinette's life and I thought Lever did an excellent job telling the story of what happened, perhaps even better than Fraser did! Lever's writing style helped, because there seem to have been a hell of a lot of politics playing around in this part of Antoinette's life, but Lever did an exceptional job. She tells the reader what happened, and explains the reason behind it as well as the outcomes and the repercussions. As previously mentioned, Lever keeps her chapters short and sweet and the chapter on the Diamond Necklace Affair is no different and comprises of a grand total of 10 pages but Lever explains everything to the point without rambling on for pages and pages without getting into the nitty gritty details which for the most part will bore the reader. Well, unless they're me who devours all the nitty gritty political stuff. But still! Fraser went more into the nitty gritty, and whilst she did a good job it did get rather dry. Lever's chapter on the Affair, her wonderful narrative on the fraudulent notes from the Queen saying she would have the hugely expensive diamond necklance, just made me want to know more but didn't go into too much detail to let my mind wander. And I like that in an author.

Throughout the book as well I found myself struck with the relationship between Marie Antoinette and Count Axel Fersen - I don't want to go too much into this because it would end up being far too much conjecture for a book review but I do like to think that maybe, just maybe, she sought solace from the excesses of Versailles in his arm. Of course this can never be proven really, but they were close right until the end, and I found myself getting rather irritated when I found out that when Marie Antoinette was imprisoned he ended up in another relationship with Eleonore Sullivan. Yet at the end he mourned her hugely and it seems developed a distaste for Elenore, due to the fact that with her he didn't share the care and tenderness that he had with Marie Antoinette. I would love to know what really happened between the Queen and her Count, and Lever does a very good job at showing her readers what can be deduced from the surviving letters and his later actions. Alas I don't think that we will ever know. As I said previously, I like to think that they had a bit of a thing going on, especially considering as how the King often left them alone, especially at their last meeting. Did he know? That's a question I doubt we can ever answer.

Count Axel Von Fersen

As I read the closing chapters of Lever's book this morning before work I found myself tearing up. Just nine months after the execution of her husband, Marie Antoinette found herself being lead to her own death at the Guillotine. In her short chapter on the death of the Queen, I found myself exceptionally moved as I read about her trial at a Kangaroo Court that had already decided her fate, and how just 2 after the start of her trial she found herself being faced by her executioner in her cell at the Conciergerie as they tied her hands and hacked her hair off. She protested, saying they hadn't tied her husband's hands but was ignored. And despite the plots to free her, including the famous Carnation Plot, she was executed on 16th October 1793 at the Guillotine set up on the Place De La Revolution. Was she guilty of what she was charged of? High Treason? Incest? According to Lever, she would have been guilty of treason after releasing details of France's military plans yet the official verdict was unproven. The people just wanted her dead, the woman who they unjustly saw as the reason for their sorrows and hardship.

I have to say, both books I have read on Marie Antoinette have been seriously hard going as I reached their conclusion very likely due to how heavy their subject matter became. Yet at the same time, I thoroughly enjoyed reading the story of the Austrian Archduchess and Queen of France. Her life was exceptional, so full of fun but ended in heartbreak and I thought that Lever did an exceptional job telling the story of Marie Antoinette - and she certainly showed the transition of the carefree, party loving Marie Antoinette to the Queen weighed down by politics and by the people's hatred, exceptionally well. I would definitely recommend this to anyone interested in the life of Marie Antoinette who doesn't know too much on the era, and even to those who know a lot about it! It is a wonderful work, and it tells the story of the ill fated Queen in a way to inspire pity in even those who believe that the verdict on Marie Antoinette was the true one. This is certainly a book I will return too, and it has helped to give me a taste for more. Thanks to this work, and that of Fraser, I will certainly be reading more about this fascinating woman.

Review: Marie Anoinette by Antonia Fraser

Before reading this, I had very little knowledge of the French Revolution. Indeed I still have little knowledge but reading this has done what I can only describe as opening a flood gate of emotion and a thirst for more knowledge on a very dark period in history. I recall being told stories as I was growing up, that my ancestors on my mothers side of the family fled from France to England during the Revolution to escape the Guillotine, and whilst I am unsure whether to actually believe these stories (who knows, they may be true), I suppose I have always had a rather morbid fascination with this period which, until now, I have never done anything about. Now before I go any further I would like to thank MadameGuillotine for recommending this book to me - it has proved to be a fantastic read and one that has opened that aforementioned flood gate of full blown emotion!

Now onto the review!

I have read books by Antonia Fraser in the past and I have to say that I was less than impressed with them. Whilst her biography of Charles II had a damn good go at making the dry parts of his history more accessible, it kind of fell short of the mark. And her book the Six Wives of Henry VIII just read exactly like every other book on Henry's wives. With this book however, I was more than pleasantly surprised. From the moment I picked it up I found myself immersed in the world of Versailles, found myself tearing up as Marie Antoinette's story came to it's horrific end. I will say now that Fraser has done a remarkable job with this book, her writing flows beautifully and as you read you can (or at least I could) picture the sumptuous elegance of the French court, could imagine the beautiful gowns that Marie Antoinette wore, felt her embarrassment in the early days of her marriage when the entire court knew that her marriage to Louise XVI went unconsummated. It's not often that a history text allows me to feel so connected to the subject I am reading about, and for making me feel this way I really must applaud Antonia Fraser.

The book itself starts, of course, with the birth of Marie Antoinette to the Empress Maria Teresa on 2nd November 1755 and details her upbringing alongside her many brothers and sisters. The "Small but completely healthy Archduchess" had a carefree childhood, growing up in the Viennese Court which often lacked strict protocol - something which Marie Antoinette would have to deal with when she arrived at Versailles much later - and the little Antoine, as she was called growing up, ended up developing a very close relationship with her sister Maria Carolina. These two girls were close in age and retained a close relationship all their lives, despite the distance that separated them. We are also told of Marie Antoinette's education, or rather lack of it, which would later lead to the French believing her to be unintelligent. Her lack of education wasn't down to poor teaching, but rather down to her lack of concentration, and whilst she loved learning music and Italian, she seemed rather unwilling to complete much of any other work. Of course, Marie Antoinette was used as a political pawn by her mother (more so after the death of the Emperor Francis I) and against a backdrop of complex alliance treaties and wars she was betrothed to the French Dauphin Louis August.

Reading the chapters on Marie's travels to France, her marriage to Louis and the sumptuous court of Versailles felt like an attack on the senses. When she arrived in France she was no longer the Archduchess of Vienna, but the Dauphine of France and the future Queen. This young woman would have no idea where this life would take her, for now she was surrounded by an extravagant court filled with gossip, she would have so many beautiful things at her finger tips. Her reception in France was incredibly enthusiastic, with children handing her flowers as she passed, and when someone addressed her in German she told them to speak to her in French, as she was now a French woman.

Her years at Versailles as the Dauphine of France were filled with extravagance and sadly, embarrassment. When I watched Sophia Coppola's "Marie Antoinette" and saw the story of how the marriage went unconsummated between herself and Louis I could hardly believe it - surely it couldn't be true? Research told me it was, and reading the chapters in Fraser's book confirmed it. Why did the marriage go unconsummated for so long? It was said that Louis had certain medical issues that stopped him from making love to his wife, but quite honestly I believe that it was nerves. Louis-August was, after all, not the most forthcoming of young men, and came across in Fraser's work as a very shy young man. It did in fact take the couple many years to consummate their marriage, despite the growing fondness between the royal couple. It should also be noted that Marie Antoinette's relationship with Madame Du Barry played a huge part in her early years at Versailles. Madame Du Barry was the mistress of Louise XV and universally hated, so much so that the hatred rubbed off on Marie Antoinette - so much so that for a long time she refused to acknowledge the King's favourite. Pressure from her mother and the Austrian minister meant that Marie eventually spoke with Du Barry, and the favourite was satisfied.

On 11th June 1775 Louise XV died, meaning that Louis August became Louise XVI, and Marie Antoinette became Queen of France. During her early years as Queen, Marie Antoinette hosted many parties, and loved to gamble. She also renovated the Petit Trianon, a gift given to her by Louise XVI. Their marriage was eventually consummated in 1777, and on 19th December 1778 Marie Antoinette gave birth to a daughter who was named Marie-Therese. Following the birth, due to the stifling atmosphere in the room thanks to the crush of people watching, she collapsed. The King had the windows open to revive her and following this incident courtiers were banned from the birthing room. The Queen gave birth to a son in 1781, the long awaited Dauphin and heir to the French throne. France was of course ecstatic at the news.

Yet amongst the happiness, the popularity of the French Queen was slowly declining.

After the birth of her second son Louis Charles in 1785, and a second daughter in 1786 (though who sadly died in June 1787); the wheels of revolution were turning. The financial situation in France was getting worse, and the Royal family were blamed for much of it. Due to a need to pass much needed reforms, Louis XVI was forced to recall the Assembly of Notables after Parlamente refused to help. It was a failure, and during this time Marie began to abandon her more carefree exploits to take more of a part in politics, not only because she was the mother of the future King of France but also to regain her reputation after the Diamond Necklace Affair in which she was accused of defrauding the crown jewellers.

During 1778-1789, the price of bread began to rise, due to the failure to reform the countries finances. At the same time, the health of the young Dauphin Louis-Joseph began to decline. And riots started to break out in Paris, whilst the public hissed at the Queen and shouted insults. And as Louis-Joseph passed away from tuberculosis, leaving the title of Dauphin to his younger brother Louis-Charles; the National Assembly was created and the French people ignored the death of their Dauphin.

The famous storming of the Bastille on 14th July 1789 heralded everything that the Revolution stood for, and as Paris erupted in riots, Louis tried to halt the pushing forward of the National Assembly with little success. As many nobles fled France at this time, desperate to escape the revolution, Marie Antoinette made the decision to stay with her husband. Yet on 5th October, Versailles was stormed, forcing the royal family to move to Paris under constant guard. Yet all the time hatred was thrown at Marie Antoinette, libelles were published accusing her of having affairs, reiterating the stories from years previously that she had been involved in lesbian relationships. Yet she held her head high. It was during this time that an escape was attempted (and I loved this story as Fraser told it, despite it's sad ending) when the Royal Family escaped from Paris and tried to make their way to Montmedy - the plot failed, and the family were arrested at Varennes on 22nd July 1791. On 13th August the royal family were imprisoned at the Tower at the Temple of Marais. This was the last place that Louise XVI would ever see, and indeed one of the last places that Marie's loyal friend the Princesse De Lamballe would ever see. The Princesse was taken for interrogation and transferred to the Prison at La Force - she was horrifically killed in the September massacres and her severed head paraded at the windows of The Tower on a pike. The story of the Princesse is a truly horrific one which deserves its own post later. Upon learning the fate of her friend, Marie Antoinette fainted. On 21st September, it was announced that the monarchy no longer existed in France and would be ruled by the Assembly and the Royal family had to re brand themselves with the last name Capet. In December, Louise was separated from his family and tried for crimes against the country - he was found guilty and sentenced to death. His death would come at the hands of the gruesome contraption known as the Guillotine on 21st January 1793.

Following Louis' death, Marie Antoinette went into a deep mourning and wore black almost constantly. For a while she refused to eat or do any exercise. Her health declined and according to Fraser, she bled often and may have began to suffer with tuberculosis and uterine cancer. She was becoming a shadow of her former self, so much so that at her own trial her appearance shocked those present. She was tried on 14th October and accused of incest with her son, inciting orgies at Versailles and sending money to Austria as well as many other unbelievable accusations. The trial was a sham, her fate had already been predetermined; she was found guilty and sentenced to death. Back in her cell at the Conciergerie, where she had been moved following the death of her husband, she composed her last letter to her sister in law. The letter never reached Madame Elisabeth. On that same same, the 16th October 1793, Marie's now white hair was cut off and she was driven to the Place De La Concorde (then known as the Place De La Revolution) in the back of a horse and cart. As she walked up the scaffold, she stepped on the executioners foot and she apologised, her last words "Pardon me Sir, I meant not to do it". Following her swift death at around 12.15pm, her body was thrown into an unmarked grave, the same place where her husband had been buried nine months earlier. Their bodies were exhumed in 1815 during the Bourbon restoration and reburied at the Cathedral of St Denis.

Fraser has done an exceptional job in telling the story of Marie Antoinette and her life. She has really managed to capture the ups and downs of this remarkable woman's life, and by the end of the book I was sobbing. whilst above I have only given a brief review of the story, there were many moments which made me cry. The story of the Princesse De Lamballe, the brainwashing of Louis-Charles and indeed the last moments of Marie Antoinette. It is an incredibly moving story - this woman's only mistake was to be Austrian, and Queen of France. To me it seemed as if the common people blamed her for their troubles which is highly unfair. Despite her spending extravagantly on her own pleasure, Marie Antoinette took part in charitable works, and the stories of her sexual deviance are little more than...well, just that, stories. Whilst she may have had a sexual relationship with Count Fersen, much of what was told in the later Libelles were just horrible stories made up to discredit this woman. She was certainly no she wolf, and Fraser paints her in a very sympathetic light. As I mentioned previously Fraser's writing style flows beautifully and really helps weave Marie Antoinette's story onto the page. This book has really made me thirst for more knowledge on Marie Antoinette and the Revolution, and not only that has completely turned my opinion of Fraser's works around - so much so that I may give her book on Charles II another go!

Expect more posts on Marie Antoinette on this blog in the future, and in particular the Princesse De Lambelle!!