Alison Weir (1) (1951–)

I wasn't sure what I was going to make of this little book, I'm generally not a fan of Alison Weir so it was with some trepidation that I approached it. Tudor history is probably one of my favourite periods but it is one that many authors trot out the same worn assumptions and incorrect "facts".

It was however a really lovely little trip through how the twelve days of Christmas was celebrated during the reigns of Henry VII through to Elizabeth I (1475 to 1603). Contemporary accounts and sources were drawn on but without turning this into an academic treatise. Overall it gives a really good picture of how the preparation, feasting, games and so forth were celebrated over 400 years ago. The result is a Christmas which is familiar and foreign in equal measure.

The only reason that I am not giving this 5 stars is because there was a few areas where some old, and largly disproven, ideas about the continuation of pagan traditions was once again trotted out. It's unfortunate as although Christmas is certainly celebrated in December due to the need of the early church to replace Saturnalia, it's unlikely that many of the traditions associated with a pre-christian midwinter festival survived for over 1,000 years. I would recommend that Ms Weir reads Ronald Hutton (Stations of the Sun, Triumph of the Moon, Rise and Fall of Merry England) or David Cressy (Bonfires and Bells) for explanations of how folk traditions have evolved, changed and eventually be superseded.

Thank you to Netgalley for providing a free copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.… (meer)

Rating: 4 out of 5

I started reading this book right on the heels of finishing The Wars of the Roses by Dan Jones. That is to say, I am relatively uninitiated to the controversy surrounding Richard III’s historical legacy. Accordingly, I can only review this book as a source of casual learning and entertainment, and cannot speak to the validity of its historical arguments and methodology with any veracity.

Weir is most certainly not a member of the Richard III Society. She consistently draws a negative moral portrait of Richard, and is relentless in her attacks on the ‘revisionists’ claims. To my uninformed eye, Weir’s data and argumentation appeared very solid, giving me little cause to doubt what she asserts.

There is one caveat to this, and that is Richard’s ‘deformity’. The Princes in the Tower was written before the discovery of Richard’s body in 2012. Weir is adamant that Richard wasn’t physically deformed. After Richard’s death, many of his portraits were altered to show that one of his shoulders was higher than the other. Some post-contemporary chroniclers talk about Richard’s ‘withered’ arm. Weir contends that this was probably moralizing on the part of people writing after Richard’s death. At the time it was commonplace to link physical issues to moral issues, and this motif was used by Tudor propogandists to further discredit the former King. Weir, after examining the sources, concludes that Richard’s deformity was propaganda and dismisses it. While (once again to my uninformed eye) this reasoning appears to be correct by the methodology of source examination, it is factually incorrect. When Richard’s body was exhumed in 2012, it was discovered that he had adolescent scoliosis, which, while not ‘withering’ any of his limbs, would have given him a shoulder that was higher than the other. I just found it fascinating that what should be nothing more than a propagandized legend was actually true.

Overall, The Princes in the Tower was a very good book to read. While not quite as thrilling as a suspense novel, I kept turning pages. Weir’s writing style is excellent, and manages to build credibility with the reader without becoming a dry slog.… (meer)

Historical fiction about Mary I of England. I enjoy reading about this period but haven't read much about Mary Tudor herself. Most of the novel is tedious with uninteresting writing and characters, and though the last part, concerning Mary's final years, was more interesting it was still a stodgy read. Generally, I prefer Weir's nonfiction and this was no exception. Weir does not care for Mary and it clearly shows in both the novel and the afterword. Whatever your opinion of Mary, I'd skip this and choose another of Weir's books, almost all of them are better.… (meer)