LADY OF THE ROSES by Sandra Worth: Review

Since it's currently 3:00 AM, and I cannot see sleep coming in the near future, I thought I'd spend my sleeplessness productively and write a review!


I recently finished LADY OF THE ROSES by Sandra Worth. It was another book from my favorite genre, historical fiction. This book takes place during the War of the Roses, also known as The Cousin's War, during the pre-Tudor times.

Isobel Ingolsthorpe becomes a ward of Marguerite of Anjou, wife to King Henry VI of England, after her parents die. This was a dangerous time in England, because no one is sure of which branch of the family to be backing up, either the Yorks or the Lancasters. Both families have legitimate claims to the throne, and since King Henry VI has fits of madness and he's a Lancaster, the Yorks are reaffirmed in their beliefs that the crown is rightfully theirs. Isobel comes from a family of staunch Lancastrians, and Marguerite of Anjou, being married to a Lancastrian King, is obviously fighting for her right as Queen and her son's right as future King of England. The two factions continue to squabble, and it eventually leads to war.
Before the war begins ripping the country apart, Isobel is introduced to John Neville, a young knight who of course is a Yorkist, and is the Earl of Warwick's (The Kingmaker) younger brother. Like a fairy tale, it is love at first sight for both of them, even though Isobel is aware that Queen Marguerite will not approve of the match. Isobel's Lancastrian uncle helps to convince the Queen of John Neville's noble qualities, and with that recommendation, along with a hefty bride price, Isobel weds John. They have a happy marriage that produces five children.
Shortly after wedding John his brother, the Earl of Warwick, helps Edward IV to win the throne from King Henry VI and Marguerite of Anjou. However, after all the work the Earl of Warwick puts into helping Edward IV claim the throne, Edward IV acts ungrateful, according to Warwick, because he does not go along with what Warick wants him to do, and how he wants him to rule the country. Warwick becomes disenchanted with the idea of a King who he can't control at all, so he decides to rise up against Edward IV, and attempt to put Edward's treasonous brother, George the Duke of Clarence, on the throne of England. Things don't go as planned, and after several failed attempts Warwick commits the unforgivable act of treason when he teams up with Marguerite of Anjou in order to take the throne back for Henry VI (who Warwick had originally helped take the throne from!)
Anyways, John doesn't agree 100% with his older brother Warwick, but in the end he cannot fight against his brother and joins forces with him, and he ends up dying during battle. Not long after Isobel dies of a weak heart.


I really did like this novel, and it was an easy read, but there were a couple of things that annoyed me. The main thing that bothered me was how Sandra Worth portrays Elizabeth Woodville (Edward IV's wife). I get that she wasn't the sweetest, most wonderful woman of her time, but in this novel she is described as being completely evil. The blame for the Earl of Warwick eventually turning against Edward IV is pretty much put on her shoulders, because of the influences that she and her large family had on the kingdom. Her family was raised high during Edwards reign, like the families of most royalty, but Worth makes them all sound as if they were inept at their duties, and all around horrible people. I've read several books, both fiction and nonfiction, on this time period, and the Woodville's may have been raised high quickly, but they all seemed to be more than capable of doing the jobs that they were given. I do believe that Elizabeth Woodville was ambitious, but in a time where she didn't know from day to day whether or not her husband would still be King or her sons future Kings, she probably did come across as grasping at times. Who could blame her when her husband's crown was not secure, and many viewed him as the usurper.


The second thing that bothered me, just a little bit, were the mushy, gushy descriptions about how much John and Isobel loved each other. They would go on and on about how in love they were, and blah, blah, blah. Yeah, I get it, it's a love story, but geez, after awhile it just became redundant. I love a good love story as much as the next person, but I ended up skipping over some of the mushy conversations between the two of them.


I just made it seem like I hated the book, but that's definitely not true! I loved reading about The War of Roses from a completely different perspective. I didn't even know that the Earl of Warwick had a younger brother, and Warwick has been in a ton of the books that I have read!  I loved Isobel's character. She was young and innocent, but her intelligence gave her character depth. It was interesting to read a novel where the Earl of Warwick isn't shown to be an absolutely horrible human being. In this novel he's shown to be human, and it makes the reader think that he may have good reason for regretting putting Edward IV on the throne. John Neville is also a likable character. He's noble and loyal, as well as a worthy knight. He follows his heart, and makes decisions that he can live with, rather than decisions that he will regret his entire life.


Historically there is little known of either Isobel or John, so Sandra Worth was able to use a lot of creative license throughout novel, which I think worked out great. As a reader, you can actually see things really happening as they were described in this novel, and you are able to see the motivations behind the actions that these great people made that changed history forever. I would definitely recommend it to a reader of historical fiction, even if you have to skip the mushy parts!


On a scale of 1-5 I'd give it 3.5.

The Stolen Crown by Susan Higginbotham

The Stolen Crown is the third novel that I have read by Susan Higginbotham. I really enjoy her writing style, because it's easy to follow, and the dialogue and actions don't feel forced at all. Her descriptions of events and dialogue between characters always seems to flow.
The Stolen Crown is written in first person point of view, told by Katherine Woodville and Harry, Duke of Buckingham. They are looking back on their lives and telling the reader their story, and what lead up to their present situation, and to Harry's eventual downfall at such a young age. It's a touching story, made even more so because it is told in first person, so as a reader you get attached to the characters. We are introduced to Kate and Harry as children, and we are able to read about their lives and the mistakes they made in their youth.
The novel begins with King Edward IV and his scandelous marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, and then it focuses on one of the advantageous marriages that were made for her sisters. Katherine Woodville is the youngest sister of six girls (i think), and as she comes from little money, she has no dowry. Were it not for her sister marrying the King, it would have been difficult to find Kate an advantageous marriage.  However, when Elizabeth becomes Queen everything changes, and Kate ends up married to the richest Duke in England, Harry, Duke of Buckingham.
We all know what happens to King Edward IV (he falls ill and dies unexpectedly), and the mysterious disappearance of his sons (one of whom was King Edward V), and how Richard III had the children of Elizabeth and Edward IV declared bastards so that they could not inherit the throne, and also how Richard III took the throne as his own. Harry, Duke of Buckingham and the newly crowned King Richard III become the best of friends, and Richard III raises Harry up high, and grants him land as well as many other honors, which of course brings Harry more enemies (mo' money, mo' problems, right? lol).
Susan's version of what happened to the princes in the Tower (one of many versions), is that Richard III ordered them to be killed, so that they could not come between himself and the throne. There are many different theories about what happened to the princes, who killed them; and the rumor that Richard had his nephews offed is the one that Susan Higginbotham is going with in this novel. According to The Stolen Crown, Harry is so overwelmed with guilt at the thought of being friends and supporting a King who would kill children, that he helped to come up with a plot to overthrow his former friend, King Richard III, and in turn to place Henry Tudor on the throne. Things don't go as planned with the plot against King Richard III, and Harry ends up getting caught, put to trial, and sentenced to be beheaded. He tells his story in the first person as he is awaiting his death, while Kate tells her story at the same time, while she is banished to Brecon (one of their land holdings).
I am up in the air about Richard's involvement in his nephew's disappearances. I've read several different books on the mysterious disappearances of Edward IV's sons, Edward V and Richard. Some author's blame King Richard III, because he didn't want them to come between himself and the throne. Other's believe that it was King Henry VII who had them killed, so that he could take the throne without the threat of York blood still looming over his reign. Then there are rumors that Harry, the Duke of Buckingham himself did it, or Henry VII's mother, Margaret Beaufort. I tend to be convinced of a different person's guilt after every book I read about this event in history! Who knows, maybe Richard III was the horrible man that was depicted in this novel, and in many others, as well as Shakespeare's play. I haven't researched the disappearance of the princes all that much, but even those who have devoted their lives to researching the princes have not found any conclusive evidence about who killed them, or even what really happened to them. They just seemed to disappear shortly after Richard took the crown.
Although I'm not sure if Richard ordered his nephews to be killed, nor do I have any idea of who it could have been if it wasn't him, I still enjoyed this novel. It made me look at the event from an entirely new perspective. I had never read anything from The Duke of Buckingham's point of view, and I really had no idea who Kate Woodville was. This may not have been my favorite of Susan's books, but I liked it for the reason that I liked her other books; it allows me, as the reader, to learn about historical figures that I normally would not read about, and she gets inside of her characters heads and makes them come alive to the reader. I also like that I was able to follow these two characters from their childhood, where they were first introduced, and through their lives as they grew together as a couple, and then grew a part again towards the end.
The Stolen Crown was a good and easy read, and I would recommend it to anyone who is interested in the disappearance of the princes or in one of the theory's of who ordered the princes deaths. It was interesting to see another perspective dealing with the rise and fall of King Richard III.

The White Queen by Philippa Gregory

Much like Gregory's book "The Red Queen," I liked it but didn't love it. I enjoyed learning more about Elizabeth Woodville, because it seems the majority of books mention her, but don't really get into much detail about her life. She's pretty much known as the mother of the "princes in the tower," and the mother of the future Queen of England, Elizabeth, who marries Henry VII and unites the Yorks and Plantagenets. She was also known to be absolutely beautiful, and her beauty caused Edward IV to fall in love with her almost at first sight, and marry her soon after, even though she wasn't royalty, and she was a widow who already had two children and was several years older than Edward IV.
I like that Gregory gave an in depth understanding of Elizabeth Woodville, because like I said, I didn't really know that much about her from other books she has been mentioned in. "The White Queen" was well written of course, and I think it was overall historically correct, but there were a couple of things that annoyed me. The first thing that was a little over the top for me, was the frequent references to Melusina. I guess she descended in some way from Melusina, who was some type of water goddess? Anyways, this brought kind of a fantasy element to the book, and it made it seem as though Elizabeth Woodville dabbled in witchcraft. I'm not exactly sure whether she did or didn't, but I'm thinking that people, especially women who were in the public eye, probably tried to stay away from witchcraft and the worshipping of a pagan goddess. I could be wrong on this one, but it was just a little annoying that she was casting spells and crazy stuff in this book! Another thing that bothered me, was the light in which Richard III was shown in. He is portrayed as an evil man who is overly ambitious and a murderer. I understand that there has been much debate on whether or not he killed the princes in the tower, but he really had no reason to do so, the boys had been declared bastards, so killing them wouldn't do anything to benefit him. However, I realize that there is still a huge debate over who would have had the best motive to kill the princes, and it is something that will never be figured out, so while I might be biased in the direction of it NOT being Richard III, there are many others who believe that it WAS him.
She comes across as kind of unlikable in this book, and sometimes it's hard for me to get into a book when I don't really like the main character. That wasn't really the case with this book though, because it was interesting to see who Elizabeth Woodville might have really been, and what she might have really been like. She's a fascinating woman, who obviously was ambitious and charismatic to have won Edward IV's heart, and to have kept it up until his death. Also, the fact that the royalty of England descended partly from her for over a hundred years to come is pretty fascinating.
This wasn't a book that I couldn't put down, but I did want to keep reading it, and to keep learning more about who Philippa Gregory believed she was as a person. I read "The White Queen" and "The Red Queen" back to back, and of the two books, I'd have to say I enjoyed "The Red Queen" more. I feel like Margaret Beaufort's life was more fascinating, and that she was a more cunning woman, who could match wits with any man of her time. I haven't done much research on either of the women these two books are written about, so I don't know how historically correct they are, but from Gregory's other books it seems like she does like to keep things more on the side of historical correctness than not. And although this book wasn't completely riveting, it did pique my interest about Elizabeth Woodville's life, and I have been looking into more books about her.