Book of the Month: Mary Boleyn, The Mistress of Kings

Title: Mary Boleyn, Mistress of Kings
Author:  Alison Weir
Pub. Date: October 2011

Publisher: Random House Publishing Group
Format: Hardcover , 400pp


Synopsis: Sister to Queen Anne Boleyn, she was seduced by two kings and was an intimate player in one of history’s most gripping dramas. Yet much of what we know about Mary Boleyn has been fostered through garbled gossip, romantic fiction, and the misconceptions repeated by historians. Now, in her latest book, New York Times bestselling author and noted British historian Alison Weir gives us the first ever full-scale, in-depth biography of Henry VIII’s famous mistress, in which Weir explodes much of the mythology that surrounds Mary Boleyn and uncovers the truth about one of the most misunderstood figures of the Tudor age.



With the same brand of extensive forensic research she brought to her acclaimed book The Lady in the Tower, Weir facilitates here a new portrayal of her subjects, revealing how Mary was treated by her ambitious family and the likely nature of the relationship between the Boleyn sisters. She also posits new evidence regarding the reputation of Mary’s mother, Elizabeth Howard, who was rumored to have been an early mistress of Henry VIII.


Weir unravels the truth about Mary’s much-vaunted notoriety at the French court and her relations with King François I. She offers plausible theories as to what happened to Mary during the undocumented years of her life, and shows that, far from marrying an insignificant and complacent nonentity, she made a brilliant match with a young man who was the King’s cousin and a rising star at court.


Weir also explores Mary’s own position and role at the English court, and how she became Henry VIII’s mistress. She tracks the probable course of their affair and investigates Mary’s real reputation. With new and compelling evidence, Weir presents the most conclusive answer to date on the paternity of Mary’s children, long speculated to have been Henry VIII’s progeny.


Alison Weir has drawn fascinating information from the original sources of the period to piece together a life steeped in mystery and misfortune, debunking centuries-old myths and disproving accepted assertions, to give us the truth about Mary Boleyn, the so-called great and infamous whore.


My thoughts:  I know this the end of the month, but there have been so many excellent books out there, it was hard to choose just one as Book of the Month.  In the end, I had to go with Alison Weir's new book on Mary Boleyn. If you haven't read any of Alison Weir's books before, be warned, that it can be a little hard going at first.  Weir's research is exhaustive, she not only reads all the original source material, but pretty much every book ever written about Henry, Mary and Anne. She goes through the myths of Mary's life, methodically debunking each one.  Weir's writing style is more academic than elegant, she doesn't weave the known facts of Mary's life like a story. Because of this, I found the book easy to put down at times. I preferred to dip into the book, reading a little at a time, rather than trying to read it all the way through. In the end, you are left knowing about as much about Mary Boleyn as you did when you started the book. Frankly, I learned more about Francis I of France, Thomas Boleyn and Mary's husbands than I did the elusive lady herself.  She did however create a plausible case for Katherine Carey Knollys being Henry VIII's daughter, and the reasons why a child of Henry and Mary's could never be acknowledged, especially after Henry fell for Anne.
 
Here is an excellent in depth-review by Claire at The Anne Boleyn Files which pretty much expresses my thoughts exactly about the book.

Anna Nicole Smith - The Opera

Watch the trailer for the world premiere of Anna Nicole, Mark-Anthony Turnage's new opera commissioned by the Royal Opera House.


The trailer highlights some key moments in her provocative life. Please note the music in the trailer is not the music from the opera.  I really wanted to see this at Covent Garden but I missed it. The same people who did Jerry Springer, the Opera are involved in this production.  Perhaps the Metropolitan Opera House will pick it up!

The Fabulous and Flamboyant Life of Lady Meux

I adore historical fiction, not just because I find history endlessly fascinating but because it leads me to fascinating women which I can then share with my readers. With Tasha Alexander’s new mystery, A Crimson Warning, I’ve discovered not one, but two fascinating and Scandalous Women. We’ve already met author Sarah Grand. This week, I introduce you to Valerie, Lady Meux.

She was born Valerie Susie Langdon in 1847. According to what little I could find on her, she was a butcher’s daughter from Devon who worked as an actress before her marriage. According to her obituary in the New York Times, she met Sir Henry while performing in Brighton. However, tongues wagged at the time that she had worked under the name of Val Reece at the Casino de Venise in Holborn and that she may even have been a prostitute. It was reported in the magazine Truth (love the title) that she had even lived in sin with a Corporal Reece. In her defense, Valerie wrote, “I can very honestly say that my sins were committed before marriage and not after.” You go girl! At the age of 31, she married Sir Henry Meux, 3rd Baronet (1856 - 1900), (pronounced “Mews”) in secret. Her husband‘s family had become rich through trade, they owned a brewery Meux and Co. (located where the Dominion Theatre now sits). Sir Henry’s father, the 2nd baronet, had married Lady Louisa Caroline Brudenell-Bruce, the daughter of the 3rd Marquess of Ailesbury.

Needless to say, her husband’s aristocratic relations were none too pleased at Sir Henry’s marriage to the bold and flamboyant beauty. Valerie was never accepted by them or by polite society. Thumbing her nose at the ton, Valerie flaunted her indifference by driving herself around London in a high phaeton, drawn by a pair of zebra. What I would give to time-travel back to the Victorian era to see that! While she may not have been accepted by polite society, she certainly wasn’t sitting at home knitting or crying into her soup. She attended meetings of the Theosophical Society, when Madame Blavatsky was still living in London. She was a familiar figure at art openings and first nights. Rumor has it that she even attended more than one prize fight in disguise.

Valerie improved and enlarged their country home at Theobalds in Hertfordshire with a swimming pool, and an indoor roller skating rink. She also created a stone circle at Dauntsey Park, one of their other estates (they owned several including a house in Park Lane and the Chateau de Sucy in France) that was used for theatrical productions. The parties at their country house must have been fun! At her request, her husband purchased Christopher Wren’s Temple Bar (one of the eight gates that surrounded the old City of London) from the City of London and installed at their country estate as a new gateway. It cost them a whopping £10,000 to install. There she entertained guests such as the Prince of Wales and Sir Winston Churchill in the upper chamber. The Temple Bar remained on the estate until the 1990’s when it was finally returned to the City of London.

Lady Meux commissioned James McNeil Whistler to paint her portrait in 1881. It was his first commission in London after his return from exile on the Continent (he had famously sued John Ruskin in 1877 for libel. Although he won, he was awarded only a farthing and the court costs were split, and Whistler had to sell his work and his house to pay for them. The damage to his reputation lasted for years). One portrait soon turned into three for a total cost of 1,500 guineas. Whistler however proved to be too demanding and difficult for Lady Meux, requiring too many sittings for her taste. She got tired of standing around wearing her fur coat and muff while he redid portions to his satisfaction. When she complained, he went ballistic. According to Stanley Weintraub in his biography of Whistler, Valerie warned, “See here Jimmy Whistler! You keep a civil tongue in that head of yours, or I will have in someone to finish those portraits you have made of me!”

Well that went over like a lead balloon! He apparently went into a rage, muttering “How dare you, how dare you,” paint brush quivering in his hand. Valerie Meux never sat for Whistler again. He destroyed the third portrait of her, Portrait of Lady Meux in Furs, although Henry Meux, Valerie’s husband had paid for it. However, Harmony in Pink and Grey: Portrait of Lady Meux can be seen today at the Frick Museum in New York, and Arrangement in Black: Lady Meux belongs to the Honolulu Academy of Arts. In a bid to gain his wife a place in polite Victorian society, Henry bought Lady Meux the diamonds that Whistler portrayed her wearing in this painting.

Not shy about spending her husband’s money, she once spent £13,000 at the jewelers. She also owned a string of race horses, winning the Derby in 1901, and was an ardent collector of Egyptian artifacts, owning over 1,700 items including 800 scarabs and amulets. A frequent visitor to the British Museum, her intention was to leave the collection to them, but they didn’t want it (because they were apparently idiots) and it was sold after her death. Sir Henry died in 1900, leaving Valerie an income of $300,000 a year which was a great deal of money back then.

She didn’t spend all her husband’s money frivolously. During the Boer War, Valerie was impressed by the heroics during the Battle of Ladysmith. Feeling patriotic, she donated artillery that was sent straight to South Africa, because the war office refused them (again what is their problem?). According to Wikipedia, they were known as the ‘Elswick Battery,’ and were used in action several times during the war. When Sir Hedworth Lambton, the commander of the Naval Brigade at Ladysmith, returned to England, he called on Lady Meux to thank her for her generosity. She was so taken with him, that she made him the chief beneficiary of her estate, provided that he change his last name to Meux (she and Sir Henry never had any children) which he did after her death by Royal Warrant.

She died in 1910, at the age of 63.

Seperated at Birth?

I'm in the midst of reading Alison Weir's new biography of Mary Boleyn (which I will review once I've finished it).  While flipping through the photos in the middle of the book, I noticed a curious thing; how much Anne of Cleves and Katherine Howard resemble each other, at least in their portraits.

This is a portrait of Anne of Cleves, probably the same one that Henry VIII saw, that charmed him. Of course, we know from history that Henry felt that he had been duped when he finally met his new bride in the flesh, and discovered that she didn't exactly look like this portrait!

This is a potrait that is assumed to be of Katherine Howard, Henry VIII's fifth wife and Anne Boleyn's cousin. If you look closely at the eyes, nose and mouth, they are remarkably similar in both paintings! Both portraits were painted by Hans Holbein the Younger, which probably explains why there is such a similarity in their looks.  Apparently Holbein wasn't as good at faces as he was at painting everything else!

A Talk with Philippa Gregory (and some other people)

Yesterday I went downtown to the Times Center to hear Philippa Gregory talk as part of The New York Times Great Literary Conversation. Her other panelists included Lee Child (author of the Jack Reacher novels which I now have to read), Rita Mae Brown (who has written a great historical fiction novel about Dolly Madison) and Sapphire, author of PUSH (made into the film 'Precious') and the sequel THE KID.  Although the other panelist were great, I really plunked down my $30 bucks to hear Philippa Gregory talk.  Which is crazy when you think about it because I could have just heard her speak for free at Barnes and Noble!

Ladies and Gentleman, I think I'm in love! I was pretty harsh about her new book THE LADY OF THE RIVERS, and as I have stated before I loathe and despise THE OTHER BOLEYN GIRL. After hearing her speak, and discovering how witty and charming she is, I now have to continue to read her backlist (I've been wanting to read A RESPECTABLE TRADE for a long time now).  She went through the top 5 myths about Philippa Gregory and one secret. I don't remember all of the myths but the two I do remember are that a) people believe that she's from the lost island of Atlantis (no, seriously they do) and b) there are people who think she has a TARDIS in her garden by which she time travels to the past in order to write her books. You know, instead of spending a year on research, reading over a 100 books, why not just pop into a box and time travel instead! God, if only it were that easy!

And get this, she rescues ducks! She told an adorable story about how every year she takes abandoned duck eggs and keeps them warm in her study so that they can hatch.  One they mature, they either fly away or stay on her farm where they get free food twice a day.  Apparently her new duck, Rasta, needed an operation that cost 60 pounds, and she cleverly hid the news from her husband until he got the bill.  Come on, how can you not like someone who rescues duckies! And she wears groovy shoes!

Here's a video I found on You Tube of Gregory talking about LADY OF THE RIVERS.

Scandalous Book Review: The Lady of the Rivers

Title:  The Lady of the Rivers
Publisher:  Touchstone Books
Pub Date:  October 11, 2011

Synopsis:

Passion. Danger. Witchcraft . . . The Lady of the Rivers is #1 New York Times bestselling author Philippa Gregory’s remarkable story of Jacquetta, Duchess of Bedford, a woman who navigated a treacherous path through the battle lines in the Wars of the Roses. Descended from Melusina, the river goddess, Jacquetta always has had the gift of second sight. As a child visiting her uncle, she met his prisoner, Joan of Arc, and saw her own power reflected in the young woman accused of witchcraft. They share the mystery of the tarot card of the wheel of fortune before Joan is taken to a horrific death at the hands of the English rulers of France. Jacquetta understands the danger for a woman who dares to dream. Jacquetta is married to the Duke of Bedford, English regent of France, and he introduces her to a mysterious world of learning and alchemy. Her only friend in the great household is the duke’s squire Richard Woodville, who is at her side when the duke’s death leaves her a wealthy young widow. The two become lovers and marry in secret, returning to England to serve at the court of the young King Henry VI, where Jacquetta becomes a close and loyal friend to his new queen. The Woodvilles soon achieve a place at the very heart of the Lancaster court, though Jacquetta can sense the growing threat from the people of England and the danger of royal rivals. Not even... .

My thoughts:  Philippa Gregory's books are hit and miss with me.  I loathed The Other Boleyn Girl (the book, and both adaptations), but I enjoyed The Boleyn Inheritance, The Red Queen and The White Queen. Unfortunately her new novel The Lady of the Rivers was both a hit and a miss for me.  I didn't find the book as compelling as The White Queen or The Red Queen.  I started reading this book over a month ago, and I kept picking it up and then putting it down, distracted by so many other things like a toddler with bright shiny objects. I'm not sure that I can put my finger on why the book was so dissatisfying to me. Perhaps I've been spoiled by all the excellent historical fiction that has been published in the last year.

I think part of the problem is that after Jacquetta marries Richard Woodville, she tends to spend a great deal of her time getting pregnant and then giving birth while events happen around her. For me, the best part of the book is the first 1/3, Jacquetta's early days, meeting Joan of Arc and how that experience transforms her, her love/hate relationship with her powers, although they seem to be confined to knowing when people are about to die. I loved reading about the legend of her goddess ancestress Melusina. Most intriguing to me was Gregory's interpretation of Jacquetta's first marriage to John, Duke of Bedford and his attempt to use her powers to find out how Henry VI's reign is going to pan out. I even enjoyed reading about her secret romance with Richard Woodville and the risk that they took to get married. Even more fascinating was the story of Eleanor Cobham, the Duchess of Gloucester, who is accused of witchcraft. Jacquetta knows that this could easily happen to her if she is not careful. The scenes where Jacquetta reluctantly uses the knowledge that she has of the old ways brings the book to life.



Another problem was Margaret of Anjou, once she appears on the scene, basically takes over every scene that she is in. Childlike, selfish, ambitious, determined, fierce, Margaret overshines Jacquetta. I longed for the scenes that she was in, and hated those times in the book when Jacquetta went back home to be with Richard. I couldn't wait for Jacquetta to be summoned back to court so that I could find out what was going on with Henry VI, Margaret and Edmund Beaufort, The Duke of Somerset. I'm sure some historians will quibble about whether or not Margaret of Anjou and the Duke of Somerset actually were lovers or not. I know that there were rumors all through out Henry VI's reign that Edward, the Prince of Wales, was not his son. I found myself yelling at the book whenever Margaret did something that I knew was going to come back and bite her on the butt.

In many ways, reading Lady of the Rivers completed the trilogy of books about the War of the Roses that started when I read Susan Higganbotham's book Queen of Last Hopes (about Margaret of Anjou) and continued with Anne Easter Smith's wonderful novel Queen by Right (about Cecily Neville). Reading all three novels, from the point of view of the women, gave me a better understanding of the conflict than reading a dry history book about the period.

My verdict:  While the novel was hit and miss for me, it is nice addition to the series that Gregory started with The White Queen.

Sarah Grand and The New Woman

While reading Tasha Alexander’s magnificent new mystery A Crimson Warning, I came across a name I had never heard before, that of novelist Sarah Grand. Alexander’s heroine, Lady Emily Hargreaves is notorious for her taste in literature that was deemed unhealthy for women. As soon as I read the name, I had to know more about her. Her name is almost forgotten; yet one hundred years ago she was regarded as a woman of genius.  Today you won't find many of her books in the library, nor is she studied much in literature courses compared to the big guns of Victorian literature, Henry James, Anthony Trollope or Thomas Hardy. However, during her lifetime Sarah Grand was known for her radical ideas, daring style, and aggressive wit. She was also credited with coining the phrase, “The New Woman.”


Sarah was born Frances Elizabeth Bellenden Clarke in Ireland, on June 10 1854. Her parents were English; her father was a coastguard commander who lived in a spacious mansion called Rosebank on the town’s Millisle Road. After her father’s death in 1861 when she was 7, her mother moved the family to England where she was enrolled in the Royal Naval School in Twickenham. She was expelled after a year for expressing what were considered radical attitudes and religious skepticism. Instead, she finished up her education at a finishing school in London.

It was marriage to army surgeon David McFall which really began to shape Sarah’s future life. Sarah was sixteen (fairly young by Victorian standards) and her new husband was 23 years her senior. David already had two sons from a previous marriage and their new stepmother was only six years older than her eldest step-son. The couple later had a son of their own named David, who later became an actor. The family travelled widely in the Far East and for a time Sarah enjoyed the glamour and excitement, not to mention the freedom of life abroad. However, after returning to England, Sarah quickly became disillusioned with her now domineering husband. Now retired, he spent his time drinking and consorting with what one would call lewd women.

Sarah turned to writing to cope with her unhappy marriage; she had already published several short stories in children’s magazines, but now she took up writing full-time. She started writing her first novel Ideala in 1881. The novel told the story of a woman who, after making a bad marriage, must decide whether to leave her husband for another man or embrace a feminist philosophy that requires her to sacrifice personal relationships for the good of other women. She published the book anonymously in 1888 with her own money and the proceeds gave her enough money to leave her husband and start a new life. She renamed herself Madame Sarah Grand, and quickly adopted unconventional dress and ideas. In her writing, she publicly attacked double standards in marriage, she also believed that women had a responsibility to other women, and that literature had the capacity to change people’s lives. According to Wikipedia, Grand also argued in favor of women’s education, and that women should have the responsibility of choosing mates with whom they might produce strong, well-educated children in order for the British nation to grow stronger.

Her next book, The Heavenly Twins, took a long time to publish. The fact that it dealt with “taboo” subject matter including venereal disease scared off many publishers. Sarah was told, amongst other things, to bury the manuscript deep in her back garden! However, despite being rejected by over 30 publishers, in 1893 the book was published. Immediately, The Heavenly Twins was a sensation. The Times and other journals refused to review the book but it didn’t matter. The book was a huge best seller, it sold over 140, 000 copies in England and America and had to be reprinted eight times during its first year of publication. Her autobiographical novel, Beth Book:  A study in the Life of a Woman of Genius (love the title!) sold 20,000 copies in its first week.

Her success opened many doors. Sarah embarked upon a lecture tour which attracted thousands of people, particularly in the United States. George Bernard Shaw (who made a career writing plays about the ‘New Woman’), Thomas Hardy and Mark Twain were among her many admirers. Critics however focused more on her broken marriage and prickly personality than her writing abilities. And not everyone was an admirer. The writer Frank Harris called her ‘aboriginal’ rather than “original” and insisted that “She was unfit to be received by decent people.”

Tired of the attacks, Sarah stopped writing for ten years, from 1898 to 1908. Instead she moved to Tunbridge Wells in Kent, focusing her attention on the National Union of Women’s Suffrage and other causes. When she took up the pen again, her later novels were not as successful as her first. The ‘New Woman,’ had become part of the lexicon and a host of new writers including Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Kate Chopin, and Elinor Glyn among others had come onto the scene. In 1920 she moved to Bath and was for several years Lady Mayoress alongside Mayor Cedric Chivers.

Sarah Grand died at her home at The Grange on May 12, 1943 and was buried in Lansdown Cemetary in Bath.

Scandalous Women on Film - The Conspirator

Cast:

James McAvoy as Frederick Aiken
Robin Wright as Mary Surratt
Evan Rachel Wood as Anna Surratt
John Simmons as John Surratt.
Toby Kebbell as John Wilkes Booth
Tom Wilkinson as Reverdy Johnson,
Norman Reedus as Lewis Payne
Kevin Kline as Edwin Stanton, Lincoln’s secretary of war.
Danny Huston as Joseph Holt, the prosecuting attorney.
Stephen Root as John W. Lloyd
Jonathan Groff as Louis Weichmann
Colm Meaney as Maj. Gen. David Hunter

Synopsis:

In the wake of Abraham Lincoln's assassination, eight people are arrested and charged with conspiring to kill the President, Vice President, and Secretary of State. The lone woman charged, Mary Surratt (Robin Wright) owns a boarding house where John Wilkes Booth (Toby Kebbell) and others met and planned the simultaneous attacks. Against the ominous back-drop of post-Civil War Washington, Senator Reverdy Johnson (Tom Wilkinson) who was supposed to defend Mary asks his colleague, the newly-minted lawyer Frederick Aiken (James McAvoy), a 27-year-old Union war hero, to take over as counsel.  Because he is a Southerner from Maryland, he feels that the jury will be automatically prejudiced against her.  Aiken reluctantly agrees to defend Surratt before a military tribunal.

Aiken is at first very reluctant to take the case and believes his client is guilty. However, he uncovers evidence casting doubt on the allegations and conducts a spirited defense. He realizes his client is being used as bait and a hostage in order to capture the only conspirator to have escaped a massive manhunt, her own son, John Surratt (Johnny Simmons). As the nation turns against her, Surratt is forced to rely on Aiken to uncover the truth and save her life.

My thoughts:  I had planned on seeing this film when it came out this past Spring but somehow never made it to the movie theatre, so I was quite happy to find out that my local library had a copy. I had written about Mary Surratt a few years ago, and I was eager to see how the story was dramatized. The film, directed by Robert Redford, is not really about Mary Surratt.  The film is more an indictment against the power of the Presidency and the War department who are trying Mary and her fellow consipirators in a military tribunal instead of criminal court.  Their reasoning is because the nation is still at war but really they want revenge for the death of President Lincoln, and are willing to ride roughshod over the civil liberties of the defendents to do so.

The film is also about Aiken's loss of innocence.  He initially believes that Mary is flat out guilty, and while he's sure that she was somehow involved in the conspiracy, he's appalled at how the law is being twisted and perverted. The audience watches as he grows from a green attorney into a more confident one as the trial progresses and he tries to do what little he can to save his client from a fate he now feels that she does not deserve. He also has to deal with the consequences of defending an unpopular defendent while the nation is still mourning.  It's not clear in the film that Surratt and the conspirators are actually tried a year after Lincoln's death.  The film makes it seem as if the trial takes place soon after Lincoln is buried (FYI, I stand corrected by Anonymous.  The film is correct on the timeline. Surratt and her co-consipirators were hung in July of 1865). Unfortunately, at least for this viewer, I found the documentary on the Special Features disc more compelling than this film. The film in the end is nothing more than a Civil War Courtroom drama, although anyone who knows history knows how it ends. Robin Wright is required to do no more than look stoic in her widow's weeds, and James McAvoy is full of righteous indignation at the knowledge that his client is being railroaded primarily in the hopes that her son will step forward and turn himself in to save his mother.

For a moment, I thought the film was going to create some sort of love triangle between Aiken, his sweetheart (played by Alexis Bledell as Rory from Gilmore Girls in a hoopskirt) and Anna Surratt (played Evan Rachel Wood).  Thank god, Redford and the screenwriters didn't throw that Hollywood cliche into the mix. I think I would have thrown something at the screen at that point. The film could have benefited if we had actually seen a little bit of the conspirators say conspiring. The audience gets a little hint in flashbacks, and Mary Surratt does admit that she knew that her son and John Wilkes-Booth were planning on attempting to kidnap the President.  Lucky for her, there is such a thing as attorney-client privilege.  It's hard to feel sympathy for Mary, although it is clear that her role in the conspiracy was minor, she was no more than an accessory like Samuel Mudd, who ended up with a prison sentence instead of being hanged for his role in hiding Booth and giving him medical attention, although he was the one who introduced John Surratt to Booth.

The irony in all this, is that the one person, who should hanged for his role in the conspiracy ended up getting off due to a mis-trial, that person being John Surratt. If the point of the film was to change people's minds about capital punishment, I'm not sure it was successful.  Those who oppose capital punishment will surely point to this film as an example of why capital punishment does not work, those for it will say the conspirators got what they deserved.

Still, it was interesting to see a big budget historical film that doesn't star Keira Knightley!