Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
6:00 pm
April 9, 2011
Offline
Prefacing by saying, that my searching is limited to Amazon and it's recommendations.
So in my search for books covering the Tudor period I have found the following very interesting.
Have you noticed that there appear to be more books dedicated to the women of the period than the men from the same period. Why do people think that?
I mean we have a whole book about Lady Rochford but not a book about her husband. There are books about Mary Boleyn in print but none on the brother, or father or uncle. Who in my opinon played just as much an important role during that period.
Even the sisters of Lady Jane have been given a book detailing their adventures. While at the same time, I'm really struggling to find a comprehensive book about the first King from the Stuart line.
There are a couple of books about Katherine Howard but none on her partner in crime – Thomas Culpepper. I know that these two can be easily linked with each other in the book so you don't need to have a seperate book, but just find it interesting that Culpepper is never used to sell a book (if you get my thinking)
Are women considered to be more fascinating than their male counterparts? Is it because most of the authors of historical books from this period are female and find it easier to relate to their subject cause she is female?
8:54 pm
August 12, 2009
Offline
You have a definite point, Bill. Henry and Cromwell have had books about them, fictional or not. I’d like to see more in depth looks at people like George Boleyn or even his father, Thomas Boleyn. And how about Cranmer or the Duke of Norfolk?
"Don't knock at death's door.
Ring the bell and run. He hates that."
9:23 pm
April 9, 2011
Offline
Cranmer could definitely be a good read, with his rise under Henry VIII, his involvement in the split with the Catholic Church and then his further push with reforms under Edward VI and culminating in Henry's daughter executing him because of, well everything he did during her family's reign.
The original Thomas Wyatt could possibly be a good read. There is plenty of untapped material for a book to be written on, but it seems women are the more intriguing characters for the moment.
Definitely agree that George Boleyn needs a book written on him.
3:48 am
June 7, 2010
Offline
I've often wondered (and please don't take this as a sexist statement) if most historical fiction about the Tudors is about women because females are more likely to read them? Now, there are plenty of examples of good historical fiction with lead male characters, but it seems the Tudors are disproportionatley about women. Although, the Tudor period was one of the first times in history where women were socially mobile and attained a certain status, sometimes independently of their fathers and husbands. It was also a time of Renaissance and new Humanist ideas about women were coming to the forefront, and women like KOA, AB, KP, and others found places within a changing culture.
Having said that, I do wish more was written about the males of the Tudor era. I am not a huge fan of historical fiction about the Tudors. I've been scarred by Philippa Gregory and Alison Weir, and will probably never recover. If a good author, with the ability to write good historical fiction came along, then maybe I would be inticed.
I've found that my favourite historical fiction is not about the Tudors; rather about earlier historical periods. Elizabeth Chadwick is the perfect example. She does research, engages with her subjects, and writes good fiction, but with history in mind. However, unlike PG, she never sells it as history. I would recommend Chadwick for historical fiction lovers. She, and Anya Seton, are the only constant historical fiction I read.
Maybe one day the men of the Tudor era will be able to compete with those amazing women, just maybe!
"By daily proof you shall find me to be to you both loving and kind" Anne Boleyn
