I've been slowing reading my way through Philippa Gregory's Plantegnet and Tudor books. I was going to wait and review the whole series, but for whatever reason I decided to write a post now.
I have been following
Goodreads' reading order for the series, which makes this the fourth book. The first book,
The Lady of the Rivers, follows the story of Jacquetta Woodville, a lady in waiting to Margaret of Anjou, wife of Henry VI (aka the "sleeping" king). The second,
The White Queen, follows Jacquetta's daughter, Elizabeth Woodville, wife of Edward IV. The third,
The Red Queen, follows the story of Margaret Beaufort, mother of Henry VII. This book then follows Anne Neville, wife of Richard III. Oof, good luck keeping track!
I had waited a long time to tackle Philippa's books as I knew they were a very mixed bag, and are sometimes controversial. They're exactly what I had heard - good on story, a little rocky on accuracy.
Gregory definitely tells a great story, and makes interesting characters. Another thing I like about these books is that they largely follow the same set of events. That might sound boring, but it's actually really interesting (to me) in that it gives you the different perspectives on the conflict. For example, the tension between the various players - Elizabeth and Anne in particular - takes on a new dimension when you read about it from both perspectives.
Personally, I think this could have been done more strongly by alternating chapters and breaking up the books by time period, rather than having each book by a different character. I think the conflict between the Neville's and Elizabeth Woodville would have been even more powerful if we were going back and forth between them, rather than reading an entire book from one perspective and switching to the other. But, I also love books that alternate characters in general, so maybe I am biased.
So, she tells a great story about a really interesting period of history from various perspectives, with a heavy focus on the perspectives of the women involved - so far it's ticking all the boxes for me. I had read that she doesn't stick particularly closely to historical fact (see
The Other Boleyn Girl, which is based on one of her books). For example, she goes with the angle that the Woodville women are witches, which is based on rumor and allegations made at the time. But she doesn't just touch on it as rumor, she uses it as an actual plot in the book. If you're looking for a close following of history, obviously that isn't it, although it certainly makes for a good story.
On the flip side, that does make it pretty obvious she is taking liberties with the facts - I try to think of it as almost a fantasy retelling of history. My biggest complaint isn't that she takes liberties with the facts per se, most historical fiction does, although I think she goes farther than most and farther than I personally would prefer. My biggest complaint is that she doesn't do a good job of telling the reader where she took liberties; she does have an afterward sort of section, but it doesn't really address this with the depth other authors do (Alison Weir and Conn Iggulden are two I can think of off the top of my head). I think where you fictionalize enough that you're changing history, you need to be transparent about it. She does clarify some things, but largely leaves it to the reader to investigate themselves.
For those reasons, she will never be one of my favorite authors, and I am reluctant to recommend her to others without those qualifiers... but damn, she does tell a good story.
