Monday, October 20, 2014

Random Book Review : Katherine

This post is riddled with spoilers, so stop right here if you have an issue with that.

Over the past three weeks, I've been reading Katherine on the train to and from college. I used to get a lot of weird glances from middle aged women who would look at the words "love story" on the cover and immediately think of the most obscene things. Contrary to what they may think, this is not a completely salacious story (Although, it is also not entirely child appropriate either. There are some themes which may be a bit grown up, such as adultery, and the thing that adultery involves, so I would recommend that you not read this until you are older than... 13? Use your discretion). It is good, historical fiction, which I am now going to massacre in this thing that I call a book review.


Katherine is an old book, about an even older time. I'm not entirely sure if I came up with that myself or if I paraphrased it from Philippa Gregory's foreword (probably the latter), but it holds true. Set in the 14th century, during the reign of Kings Edward III and Richard II, the book revolves around Katherine Swynford, long time mistress of the Duke of Lancaster, John of Gaunt. Katherine and John's children were the Beauforts, the ancestors of King Henry VII. 

The story goes like such: Katherine meets the Duke of Lancaster while she is a part of the retinue of the Duchess of Lancaster, Blanche. When Blanche dies, the Duke's servant poisons Katherine's husband, Hugh Swynford, so that she can enter into a relationship with the Duke without it being adulterous (there is no historical evidence of this, but it seems to be the generally accepted sequence of events). Unfortunately, the Duke is already betrothed to Constanza of Castile, who he plans to use to get the thrones of Castile and Leon for himself. But the pair start a relationship anyway, and they have four children together. When Constanza dies, John and Katherine get married, their children are legitimized, and everyone is happy until John's own death some three years later. Well, as happy as they can be while tyrannical King Richard is seizing lands and killing nobles. 

~

One of the main subplots of the story revolves around Blanche Swynford, Katherine's eldest daughter from her first marriage. Blanche was in the Savoy Palace when it burned down during the Peasant's Revolt of 1381, and it was presumed by everyone that she was dead. Katherine was, obviously, mightily upset. She thought that her daughter had been killed as a punishment for her (Katherine's) adultery, and so she severed all ties with the Duke, and went off on a pilgrimage to Walsingham.

The entire time that this was happening, I kept expecting that, as a reward for her suffering and penance, Katherine would be reunited with her daughter, and go back to the Duke, and that everything would go back to the way it was. Which it didn't. And I resigned myself to the fact, because, after all, this is a story based in history, and if Blanche Swynford died in the Savoy that day, Blanche Swynford died in the Savoy that day. I even Googled her, and though there's not a lot of information about Blanche Swynford, after a lot of reading, I was able to put her death down to sometime between 1375 and 1385, which fits with the story's timeline.

So imagine my surprise when Blanche Swynford returned! Many, many years after she was presumed dead at the Savoy, after John and Katherine's wedding, she shows up their palace dressed as a nun, and the book ends with mother and daughter being reunited at last. A most satisfactory conclusion to a story that already ended happily, I must say, although I really doubt its veracity.

~

I apologise for ruining so much of the plot, if you brazenly ignored the first sentence of this post. Although, I supposed there is a tiny chance that, even though you thought you didn't want to read the book initially, you want to now. 

And I would strongly recommend that you do read Katherine. It can get a bit dry at times, especially when Katherine and the Duke of Lancaster are apart, and on a couple of occasions, the characters take it upon themselves to speak in French, so do keep some sort of translator handy.

But if you enjoy historical fiction, here is one about the Plantagenet dynasty at its finest. Anya Seton's writing is both extremely well researched, and also very true to the its historical setting. And, like every good bit of historical fiction, Katherine made me want to go online and read everything that I could about that period in history. 

From the book, I learned (1) who Alice Perrers was, (2) that Geoffrey Chaucer was married to Katherine Swynford's sister Philippa, and (3) that the Beauforts were named after Beaufort Castle (I had always wondered where they got their name from). Also some other things, that I can't think of off the top of my head. 

And I think that is the mark of good historical fiction - though it may not be completely historically accurate itself (come on, do you really think Blanche Swynford jumped into the Thames from the top floor of a flaming tower?), it intrigues you and it makes you learn. Somehow. 

~

Also, do you remember Sunaina, my friend who gave me The White Queen for my birthday? Again, big thanks to her for spotting Katherine in a pile of books and thinking that I might like it. She has a really keen eye for good reads; you can check out some of her book reviews here.

N

Monday, October 6, 2014

You're Not Normal!

Last week's royal hullabaloo was over the fact that the paparazzi have been taking unsolicited pictures of Prince George as he plays in the park with his nanny (And pairing said pictures with hilarious headlines like "Prince George has a ball". Because he's playing with a ball). Now, I'm not going to encourage you to view these pictures by posting a link, because they were taken without William and Kate's consent, but I will give you a bit of friendly advice: If you want to read funny things about Prince George, that may be slightly mean, but are written with love, Suri's Burn Book is one of my favourites. Also Buzzfeed.

Anyway, back to the photographs issue. Apparently, some photographers are stalking little George, to the extent that they know his daily routine and regular hangout spots. Now if that is really happening, then it's very wrong. He's a baby. He doesn't realise what's happening, so he's not fair game. So, if that's happening, it's perfectly normal for the Cambridges threatening to take legal action.

But if there's no actual stalking - if it's just people who happen to be in Hyde Park, taking pictures of that famous baby which they recognise from all the papers - then I personally feel that William and Kate are being a bit silly. And that's not just because I like looking at pictures of Prince George playing in the grass.

This is just an extension of Prince William's constant whinging about wanting to be normal. And though I love William and Kate just as much, or maybe more, than the next person, their constant I-just-want-to-lead-a-normal-life-ing is often quite annoying.

As Darren McGrady said: 
If I've said it once before, I've said it a hundred times - the only reason the royals are so fascinating to us common folk is because they're part of a family that, for a thousand years, has been more privileged and more powerful than anyone else. Also because even though Kate Cambridge's clothes sometimes cost north of £1,000, she's always wearing a new outfit. Normal people can't afford to do that.

A lot of people criticise the Duke and Duchess of Camridge for being "lazy", and for not carrying out as many engagements as, say, the Earl and Countess of Wessex or the Princess Royal, and for randomly going off on holidays to Mustique. But I don't think that they are affecting the Royal Family as much by doing that as they are by going around and proclaiming themselves to be, just normal. Because if I want a normal person to look up to, I know plenty. I only know one Duchess of Cambridge.

~

All week long I've been watching behind the scenes and interviews with the cast and crew of The White Queen, for some reason, and I've grown very fond of Edward IV. This is because, and only because, of sheer brilliance on the part of the casting directors. I've always personally thought of King Edward as a bit idiotic and shortsighted, even. Great military leader and tactician he may have been, but he married a power hungry and selfish... well, you know, and his entire dynasty was in shambles within two years of his death. And yet I am willing to overlook those things, which may or may not have anything to do with the fact that Max Irons, who plays him, looks like this:


This is great news from the perspective of another Yorkist ruler....

RICHARD III !!!

Because you cannot hate Benedict Cumberbatch on a horse. No matter how many nephews he murders (Remember, this picture was released by the BBC ahead of the next season of The Hollow Crown. The show is based on William Shakespeare's plays, so you can be sure that Richard/Benedict had something to do with the death of the Princes in the Tower).

~

Anyway, do you remember my attempts at book reviewing a few months ago - I reviewed a few books from Philippa Gregory's The Cousins' War series? Well, it's coming back! Next week, I'm going to review Alison Weir's The Captive Queen, about Eleanor of Aquitaine, and the week after that I'm going to write about Anya Seton's Katherine, about Katherine Swynford.

If I ever finish it, that is.

N