I rolled my eyes pretty heavily when The White Queen kicked off with the hoary romance trope of instalove. But it redeemed itself from that sin by not dragging out an endless will-they-or-won't-they in which we're supposed to believe that two adults with serious responsibilities (he as the king, she as a widowed mother to two small sons) would pine after each other for years based on one encounter. Instead we're supposed to believe that these same two adults would almost immediately fall in love and decide to marry...according to Gregory's author's note, because that's what they did. That they married in secret while Edward's advisors were trying to negotiate a marriage to a foreign princess for alliance purposes is a matter of historical fact. But to her credit, Gregory wraps up their "courtship" in a relatively short period of time and their actual marriage (and Elizabeth's life after his death) make up the bulk of the book.

Although Edward was a prolific adulterer, Gregory doesn't mine their relationship for drama. Elizabeth is not totally immune from jealousy, but she accepts that her husband is who he is and his philandering is only a minor plot point. The drama comes organically from the situation in which Elizabeth and Edward find themselves: the leaders of a tenuous dynasty, constantly threatened. Elizabeth even gives birth to her first son, also named Edward, in sanctuary (literally spending months living inside the walls of a church) because her husband has been temporarily foisted from the throne. With a background situation like that, she doesn't need to create problems in their marital relationship for intrigue.

Getting into War of the Roses material does help the Tudor era issues make more sense. Henry's desperation for a male heir is understandable when you realize that it was only with the marriage of Henry's father (a Lancaster) to his mother (a York) that there was any sort of sustainable-seeming peace in England after a generation of civil war. Henry was only the second Tudor king and there were men in England with equally persuasive claims to the throne. It wasn't just his personal desire for a son, it was a very real matter of societal security.

When I read The Creation of Anne Boleyn a while back, one of Susan Bordo's beefs with Philippa Gregory was that she'd alluded to Anne's guilt on some of the charges...specifically, that she might have slept with her brother in a desperate attempt to conceive an heir for Henry and save her own head. But it's not only to Anne that Gregory does this: her Katherine of Aragon is guilty of the charges that she'd consumated her marriage to Henry's brother Arthur, and in this book, Elizabeth Woodville and her mother are guilty of charges of witchcraft that are levied against them. I almost wonder if this is Gregory's way of pushing her audience out of their comfort zone a little. It makes us ask ourselves if they'd have "deserved" what they got, even if it were true. Did Anne deserve to die? Did Katherine deserve the cruelty she suffered at the end of her life? Did Elizabeth Woodville deserve to have her crown taken and her sons disinherited (and disappeared)? Even if it were true? ( )

Philippa Gregory is one of my favorite historical fiction authors for the simple reason that she was the one who first introduced me to the Tudors with her popular bestseller, The Other Boleyn Girl. Over the years I’ve read enough books about the Tudors, watched movies and TV series, to make this dynasty one of the most fascinating topics to me. But before the Tudors came a period in English history that was just as interesting in its politics and dynamics. The War of the Roses or the Cousins’ War was the fight to rule the throne between the House of Lancaster and the House of York.

The White Queen is the beginning of a promising new series from Gregory. As the two Houses fight to claim their right, there is much political intrigue and mystery, especially the one surrounding the fate of the Princes of York who were imprisoned in the Tower and then never heard from again. Elizabeth Woodville, a widow who is every bit ambitious as the ladies of the time, ascends the throne as King Edward’s wife. But her time as Queen and her struggle to keep the throne in the name of rightful heir, her son, will see her negotiating dangerous terms with her enemies. But just who is one her side and who is seeking to work for their own profit is a dilemma she is often conflicted with.

“He promised her that he would give her everything, everything she wanted, as men in love always do. And she trusted him despite herself, as women in love always do.”
“Edward lives as if there is no tomorrow, Richard as if he wants no tomorrow, and George as though someone should give it to him for free.”
Every bit as fascinating as the Tudor series, I’m glad to read another historical fiction written by Philippa Gregory. Recommended to fans of Tudors who would like to go beyond and into the past of what was before the Tudors came along. ( )

Historical Fiction

Potentially an interesting read as I've read a few history books about the period and Elizabeth Woodville and her family, but it's a book of two halves. Firstly she's a dewey eyed woman who finds she's met the love of her life when she petitions Edward IV for her dead husband's inheritance, but later on she's totally ruthless and ambitious in her machinations to hang onto the throne for her eldest son. Even her own daughter (the future mother of Henry VIII) finds her unpleasant.

In the copy I have, Gregory gives an interview at the back where she says the decision to make Elizabeth, her mother, and eldest daughter all real life witches who can actually make things occur with supernatural means, such as whistling up storms, was the most fun and exciting element of the story when she was writing it. However, these are real historical characters and I think she does the story a disservice by going down that route. Far better to explore the impact on them of being accused by others of witchcraft while being without it - if she wanted that fantasy element, she would've been far better off doing an out and out fantasy alternative history or something of the sort.

As far as story development goes it is rather uneven. Years are skipped over or covered in very short sections of a couple of pages. Also although she starts off having Elizabeth know of remote events only through letters etc, when it comes to major battles she then does an omniscient author view which is meant to be the 'witches' being able to experience these events remotely. I'm afraid it jars although the battle descriptions themselves are OK. It would have been far better to have adopted a different character viewpoint for such scenes.

One thing I did like is that she followed the line that Richard III was innocent - his enemies such as the Duke of Buckingham, who had the keys to the tower, killed the princes while he was out of London, without his knowledge. (I'm not treating this as a spoiler as it is well known historically that they died, and he was supposed to have arranged it.)

The style is quite pedestrian and I was getting bored long before the end, I'm afraid. This is very lightweight stuff and a shame if people approach the period through this rather than novels such as The Sunne in Splendour by Sharon Kay Penman. ( )

Better than the last couple of books in the Tudor series but not my favorite. I have grand hopes for this series though, a good start. ( )