An overview of England's medieval queen consorts from Matilda of Flanders to Elizabeth of York. We learn a bit about each queen's background and their rise to power. While I appreciate that each lady's life story was heavily involved in the politics of the times, I wish the book was a little more detail oriented. For instance, several of the queens in the book were said to have had sumptuous and extravagant ceremonies surrounding their weddings and coronations, yet there was really no offering has to how it came to be so described. "Her coronation was grand" is about all we get in some instances. For me, a lot of the writing was very dry, and some details such as mentioned above would've gone a long way in helping to gain a better picture of the ladies. ( )

Entertaining and informational, this book brings to light, to the best of historical evidence's ability, how medieval English queens contributed during their reigns. You also learn a lot in general about medieval English history and life (always fascinating!). Although I knew with my brain that royal marriages were purely political, it was still shocking to discover how many girls were married off when mere children. Fun facts. ( )

This is a history by theme, rather than period. It takes each of the women who have taken the role of Queen between William the Conqueror and Henry VII and discusses each of them in turn. It looks at who they were, what is known of them as a woman, not just as a figurehead. It looks at how the role the queen could play has shifted across the centuries, and how they were viewed by their contemporaries as well as by later generations.
It s not afraid to try and debunk a few myths, and to accept that they may have been a bad queen, but good mother or interesting woman. Each is addressed in their own chapter,although in some cases there are overlaps. Some queens survived their husbands and played roles in their daughter in law's life as well. And the wars of the roses gets very confusing, with multiple holders of the title of queen at once.
They were not all an identikit parade of dynastic pawns, some of them took life on and played their hand. It's an interesting look at the role and the very different women who filled it. ( )

I found it hard to rate this book. I had trouble getting into it at first, but then I was gripped it. I enjoyed the way that Hilton wove the stories of succeeding queens together so that one got a fairly unified history of the entire period. Hilton comes across as knowledgeable and thoughtful, although a couple of problems with the book give me pause.

One is the numerous typo-kind of mistakes that resulted in errors of fact. As examples, in the section on Philippa of Hainault, there is a reference to Blanche of Lancaster's father Henry, when it is her grandfather Henry who is meant. Philippa's daughter Isabella is said to have given birth to her first child in 1265, which would be a good trick since neither of Isabella's paternal grandparents were alive at that time. One assumes that 1365 was meant. In the section on Catherine de Valois, Isabeau of Bavaria is said to have been imprisoned in 1317, well before she was born c.1370. Catherine is said to have been shorted on her dower rights in 1332, some sixty-nine years before she was born, and even before her parents were born. At one point, Louis IX (St. Louis, 25 April 1214 – 25 August 1270) is referenced when Louis XI (3 July 1423 – 30 August 1483) is meant. These are not the only instances, careful reading would produce more examples.

I was also troubled when I got to the section on Anne Neville. I have read several dozen books on the Wars of the Roses and related personalities, so I was paying a bit more attention, and I realized that her footnoting is totally inadequate. Most historians state that neither the mothers nor the birthdates of Richard III's illegitimate children can be known for sure, although there are various theories. Hilton states, with no footnote, that Alice Burgh was the mother of Richard III's illegitimate son John of Pontefract or Gloucester. Amy Licence states in her biography Anne Neville : Richard III's Tragic Queen that this is the theory of Michael Hicks, but not only is there no footnote, there is no reference to his work in the bibliography. Hilton also states that when Edward of Middleham, Richard III & Anne's son, was made Prince of Wales in York, he was so frail that he had to be carried in a litter. Again, no footnote. I have never heard this before, which doesn't make it untrue, but it needs to be footnoted. Another author that I read recently, equally shy of footnotes, claimed that he was in general good health and likely died of appendicitis.

Lastly, Hilton argues "[...] Anne's relationship with her intended husband was considered genuinely incestuous. To anyone with a conscience in the late fifteenth century, it was just plain wrong." No supporting evidence. In his biography Anne Neville : Queen to Richard III, Michael Hicks makes a similar argument, claiming that such a marriage would never be approved, and then backs off, admitting that other marriages with the same impediments were approved. Amy Licence states in her above mentioned biography, published after Hilton's book, that a number of similar marriages took place. The marriage seems to have been accepted in its time. Just to pick a couple of famous examples that come to mind, Ferdinand and Isabella the Catholic approved the marriages of two of their daughters to their brothers-in-law around this time period: Catherine of Aragon married the son of Henry VII of England, Arthur, and was betrothed to his brother Henry in 1503; Maria of Aragon married her sister Isabella's widower, Manuel I of Portugal in 1500.

So I think it is worth reading, but one can certainly hope for a second improved edition. ( )

Lisa Hilton's explores the lives of the twenty women crowned between 1066 and 1503

nonfiction

She reminds us of well-known figures like Eleanor of Aquitaine and illuminates the lives of forgotten queens such as Adeliza of Louvain... ( )