What do you think?
Rate this book
Jane Boleyn: The True Story of the Infamous Lady Rochford
In a life of extraordinary drama, Jane Boleyn was catapulted from relative obscurity to the inner circle of King Henry VIII. As powerful men and women around her became victims of Henry’s ruthless and absolute power, including her own husband and sister-in-law, Queen Anne Boleyn, Jane’s allegiance to the volatile monarchy was sustained and rewarded. But the price for her loyalty would eventually be her undoing and the ruination of her name. For centuries, little beyond rumor and scandal has been associated with “the infamous Lady Rochford.” But now historian Julia Fox sets the record straight and restores dignity to this much-maligned figure whose life and reputation were taken from her.
Born to aristocratic parents in the English countryside, young Jane Parker found a suitable match in George Boleyn, brother to Anne, the woman who would eventually be the touchstone of England’s greatest political and religious crisis. Once settled in the bustling, spectacular court of Henry VIII as the wife of a nobleman, Jane was privy to the regal festivities of masques and jousts, royal births and funerals, and she played an intimate part in the drama and gossip that swirled around the king’s court.
But it was Anne Boleyn’s descent from palace to prison that first thrust Jane into the spotlight. Impatient with Anne’s inability to produce a male heir, King Henry accused the queen of treason and adultery with a multitude of men, including her own brother, George. Jane was among those interrogated in the scandal, and following two swift strokes from the executioner’s blade, she lost her husband and her sister-in-law, her inheritance and her place in court society.
Now the thirty-year-old widow of a traitor, Jane had to ensure her survival and protect her own interests by securing land and income. With sheer determination, she navigated her way back into royal favor by becoming lady-in-waiting to Henry’s three subsequent brides, Jane Seymour, Anne of Cleves, and Catherine Howard. At last Jane’s future seemed secure–until an unwitting misstep involving the sexual intrigues of young Queen Catherine destroyed the life and reputation Jane worked so hard to rebuild.
Drawing upon her own deep knowledge and years of original research, Julia Fox brings us into the inner sanctum of court life, laced with intrigue and encumbered by disgrace. Through the eyes and ears of Jane Boleyn, we witness the myriad players of the stormy Tudor period. Jane emerges as a courageous spirit, a modern woman forced by circumstances to fend for herself in a privileged but vicious world.
Born to aristocratic parents in the English countryside, young Jane Parker found a suitable match in George Boleyn, brother to Anne, the woman who would eventually be the touchstone of England’s greatest political and religious crisis. Once settled in the bustling, spectacular court of Henry VIII as the wife of a nobleman, Jane was privy to the regal festivities of masques and jousts, royal births and funerals, and she played an intimate part in the drama and gossip that swirled around the king’s court.
But it was Anne Boleyn’s descent from palace to prison that first thrust Jane into the spotlight. Impatient with Anne’s inability to produce a male heir, King Henry accused the queen of treason and adultery with a multitude of men, including her own brother, George. Jane was among those interrogated in the scandal, and following two swift strokes from the executioner’s blade, she lost her husband and her sister-in-law, her inheritance and her place in court society.
Now the thirty-year-old widow of a traitor, Jane had to ensure her survival and protect her own interests by securing land and income. With sheer determination, she navigated her way back into royal favor by becoming lady-in-waiting to Henry’s three subsequent brides, Jane Seymour, Anne of Cleves, and Catherine Howard. At last Jane’s future seemed secure–until an unwitting misstep involving the sexual intrigues of young Queen Catherine destroyed the life and reputation Jane worked so hard to rebuild.
Drawing upon her own deep knowledge and years of original research, Julia Fox brings us into the inner sanctum of court life, laced with intrigue and encumbered by disgrace. Through the eyes and ears of Jane Boleyn, we witness the myriad players of the stormy Tudor period. Jane emerges as a courageous spirit, a modern woman forced by circumstances to fend for herself in a privileged but vicious world.
319 pages, Hardcover
First published December 26, 2007
186 people are currently reading
5298 people want to read
About the author
Julia Fox
3 books93 followersBiography
Julia Fox was born in London. From a very early age, she set her heart on becoming a teacher and taught in a public and private schools in north London. She left teaching to concentrate on researching and writing 'Jane Boleyn'. Her interests include music, theatre, walking and cooking. She lives in London with her husband, the Tudor historian John Guy, and their three cats.
Julia Fox was born in London. From a very early age, she set her heart on becoming a teacher and taught in a public and private schools in north London. She left teaching to concentrate on researching and writing 'Jane Boleyn'. Her interests include music, theatre, walking and cooking. She lives in London with her husband, the Tudor historian John Guy, and their three cats.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 408 reviews
December 17, 2008
I was really looking forward to reading this book, but was sorely disappointed.
Jane Boleyn, is something of a shadowy figure, so I assumed that this book would bring forth lots of new information and insights into her characterand circumstances.
Unfortunately all this book did was rehash the well worn stories of Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard's downfalls, with which the story of Jane is so closely linked.
The information specifically relating to Jane could have been presented in a short research paper, as such the book comes across as needlessly over long.
Author also has an irritating habit of inferring how Jane would have felt in particular situations, despite the fact that there was never any proof of it.
Overall I was extremely disappointed with this book.
Jane Boleyn, is something of a shadowy figure, so I assumed that this book would bring forth lots of new information and insights into her characterand circumstances.
Unfortunately all this book did was rehash the well worn stories of Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard's downfalls, with which the story of Jane is so closely linked.
The information specifically relating to Jane could have been presented in a short research paper, as such the book comes across as needlessly over long.
Author also has an irritating habit of inferring how Jane would have felt in particular situations, despite the fact that there was never any proof of it.
Overall I was extremely disappointed with this book.
June 27, 2011
There is a reason that there are eleventy-gazillion non-fiction books about Anne Boleyn, and only one (as far as I know) devoted to her sister-in-law Jane Rochford. While Anne’s life is fairly well documented after her arrival at the English court, the known facts of Jane Rochford’s life are of such limited number they are better suited to a brief Wikipedia page than a full length book.
This is not a book about Jane Rochford; it is a book about the author’s suppositions. Jane probably did this, may have done that, and almost certainly would have been there.
I find it strange that the author claims to have uncovered a “kinder, gentler, misunderstood” Jane, but offers little in the way of evidence. Most of Jane’s bad press comes from the fact (one of the few that we have) that she testified against her husband in court and contributed to his death. Sixteenth century politics were brutal; I am not denying that Jane may have been misled or manipulated and History is inevitably written by the victors. Anne Boleyn’s daughter lived to tell the last tale, and who knows what records or documents were destroyed. But the fact is we don’t have enough firm evidence to make any new conclusions about Jane’s relationship with her husband. One letter asking about his health doesn’t override that fact that she helped send him to his death.
Again, I’m not saying our current perception of Jane Rochford is accurate; I just need actual proof before accepting the author’s conclusions that we should change that perception.
…and why is Jane Seymour on the cover? There are any number of “Unknown Tudor Lady” portraits they could have used; why use one that most emphatically isn’t Jane Rochford?
This is not a book about Jane Rochford; it is a book about the author’s suppositions. Jane probably did this, may have done that, and almost certainly would have been there.
I find it strange that the author claims to have uncovered a “kinder, gentler, misunderstood” Jane, but offers little in the way of evidence. Most of Jane’s bad press comes from the fact (one of the few that we have) that she testified against her husband in court and contributed to his death. Sixteenth century politics were brutal; I am not denying that Jane may have been misled or manipulated and History is inevitably written by the victors. Anne Boleyn’s daughter lived to tell the last tale, and who knows what records or documents were destroyed. But the fact is we don’t have enough firm evidence to make any new conclusions about Jane’s relationship with her husband. One letter asking about his health doesn’t override that fact that she helped send him to his death.
Again, I’m not saying our current perception of Jane Rochford is accurate; I just need actual proof before accepting the author’s conclusions that we should change that perception.
…and why is Jane Seymour on the cover? There are any number of “Unknown Tudor Lady” portraits they could have used; why use one that most emphatically isn’t Jane Rochford?
November 20, 2008
To relate the story of Jane Boleyn, Anne Boleyn's sister-in-law, Fox did a great deal of research. Unfortunately, there was apparently little to unearth. In over 300 pages, Jane is quoted exactly twice: in a letter to Cromwell and a few sentences from her testimony regarding Katherine Howard. That's it. We don't know when she was born, where she was raised, how she was educated or even what she looked like. Even her last words from the scaffold (she was executed for her part in Katherine Howard's treachery) were not recorded.
Jane may or may not have been "elegant, poised, and animated," as Fox insists she was. But the fact is, we have no way of knowing. All but a few hours of her life are a complete mystery to us. The best Fox can do is guess--and guess she does, throughout the entire book. And for a history that encompasses the love affairs and executions of two fascinating queens, particularly one riddled with conjecture, the book is surprisingly dry. I used it as a sleep aid.
Jane may or may not have been "elegant, poised, and animated," as Fox insists she was. But the fact is, we have no way of knowing. All but a few hours of her life are a complete mystery to us. The best Fox can do is guess--and guess she does, throughout the entire book. And for a history that encompasses the love affairs and executions of two fascinating queens, particularly one riddled with conjecture, the book is surprisingly dry. I used it as a sleep aid.
August 8, 2008
First off...just found out I can do this through facebook...v. cool
Okay now to the book
It's basically "hmm this what I think happened..." "and Jane was a 16th century woman so she would..." and then "she got her head chopped off."
Women in the 16th century, unless they were women in extraordinary circumstances, were simply not well documented. And Jane just wasn't. And we just don't know. But to say in the absence of not knowing that we should assume she was a poor maligned victim of circumstance...is a bit much. The author extrapolated a LOT...
What we do know is that she was married to George Boleyn and testified willingly or not against her husband and sister in law and was enough in favor that she was brought back to be a lady in waiting to Jane Seymour. We also know that she facilitated a queen cheating on the king. Willingly or not, that's just a dumb dumb dumb move.
And I could get behind "dumb" and "caught up in the moment." Sure...I'll buy that. I won't buy..."she was innocent victim of circumstance and by the time she realized culpepper and catherine were doing the nasty, her only choice was to help them arrange places for said nastiness."
Honestly, most of this book was about Anne Boleyn, with the "Jane would have..." "Jane could have..." "Jane might have thought..." to tie the facts to the title page...and they were tied loosely.
Fine to read. I skimmed a lot, but at the end, I couldn't pick Jane out of a crowd.
The author stated she wanted to rehabilitate public opinion of Jane Boleyn. A fine goal, but you can't just have gut instinct and hopeful interpretation of the facts to do so. Jane might have been a innocent bystander, or she might have been an awful human being. After reading this book, I couldn't tell you which she was anymore than I could have before reading it.
If you have some free time, sure...but if you're looking for insight and historical research...look elsewhere.
Okay now to the book
It's basically "hmm this what I think happened..." "and Jane was a 16th century woman so she would..." and then "she got her head chopped off."
Women in the 16th century, unless they were women in extraordinary circumstances, were simply not well documented. And Jane just wasn't. And we just don't know. But to say in the absence of not knowing that we should assume she was a poor maligned victim of circumstance...is a bit much. The author extrapolated a LOT...
What we do know is that she was married to George Boleyn and testified willingly or not against her husband and sister in law and was enough in favor that she was brought back to be a lady in waiting to Jane Seymour. We also know that she facilitated a queen cheating on the king. Willingly or not, that's just a dumb dumb dumb move.
And I could get behind "dumb" and "caught up in the moment." Sure...I'll buy that. I won't buy..."she was innocent victim of circumstance and by the time she realized culpepper and catherine were doing the nasty, her only choice was to help them arrange places for said nastiness."
Honestly, most of this book was about Anne Boleyn, with the "Jane would have..." "Jane could have..." "Jane might have thought..." to tie the facts to the title page...and they were tied loosely.
Fine to read. I skimmed a lot, but at the end, I couldn't pick Jane out of a crowd.
The author stated she wanted to rehabilitate public opinion of Jane Boleyn. A fine goal, but you can't just have gut instinct and hopeful interpretation of the facts to do so. Jane might have been a innocent bystander, or she might have been an awful human being. After reading this book, I couldn't tell you which she was anymore than I could have before reading it.
If you have some free time, sure...but if you're looking for insight and historical research...look elsewhere.
October 16, 2008
Julia Fox swings back and forth between brilliantly well researched presentation of the lesser known members of King Henry’s court, to a style of faux history that made me wince. When she has facts, she does a great job presenting the rise and fall of five of Henry’s queens through a brand new lens that was very informative and thought provoking. However, when she runs out of records, she brazenly makes guesses, saying things like “dance lessons were Jane’s favorite pastime,” without a shred of proof backing her claims, and liberally peppers the book with “maybes” “perhaps” “might have” and “probably”.
As a book on what the average life for a Tudor noblewoman was like, this book does a great job. However, saying that the average was Jane Boleyn is a very shaky guess.
The parts of the book that are documented are brilliantly done, the rest teeters dangerously into the realm of outright fanfiction. Fox is hampered by the fact there is so little information on Jane Boleyn, and all the guessing is annoying, but the previously ignored facts she does unearth, such as the fairly well documented life of her father and his family, is fascinating to read, giving yet another layer to contemplate about the bustling court of Henry VII.
My own guess is this book got the green light due to the success of Philippa Gregory. Fox needs to tighten her writing a little more and be able to back up all, not just some, of her statements with solid proof. A good first foray into the realm of the “others” of history, hopefully next time she will do better.
As a book on what the average life for a Tudor noblewoman was like, this book does a great job. However, saying that the average was Jane Boleyn is a very shaky guess.
The parts of the book that are documented are brilliantly done, the rest teeters dangerously into the realm of outright fanfiction. Fox is hampered by the fact there is so little information on Jane Boleyn, and all the guessing is annoying, but the previously ignored facts she does unearth, such as the fairly well documented life of her father and his family, is fascinating to read, giving yet another layer to contemplate about the bustling court of Henry VII.
My own guess is this book got the green light due to the success of Philippa Gregory. Fox needs to tighten her writing a little more and be able to back up all, not just some, of her statements with solid proof. A good first foray into the realm of the “others” of history, hopefully next time she will do better.
August 17, 2008
The problem is, there wasn't enough info on Lady Rochford to fill a 50 page book, much less a 300 page book. So 5/6 of the book is either conjecture or information that belongs in other people's biographies, like Anne Boleyn's or Catherine Howard's.
February 17, 2023
Good, a little like the author is trying to save the reputation of Jane which is understandable, but interferes a little with this being a history book, as there should be a level of detachment. Beautifully written, much more like a novel. Really places you in the era.
December 25, 2010
When first faced with this book, my mind was intrigued. I was hoping that finally I would get a more indepth introspective look at the motivations and movements behind the choices and life of that 'infamous bawd Jane Rochford'.
Indeed, if you are new in your knowledge about the Tudor-era England, this book will be of some use and give you an interesting viewpoint to the life of Lady Jane Parker, who would become Jane Boleyn aka The Viscountess of Rochford.
If you are not new, such as myself, sadly this book doesn't not really give any new introspect to Jane Boleyn's side to the story. In fact, there were times (such as when she was a lady in waiting to Anne of Cleeves) I was hoping would have more of a thorough telling. Even her saucy (if not ill situation) of being used as the go between between her Majesty Katherine Howard and Thomas Culpepper. It is even surprising the author doesn't go indepth amongst the circumstances of Jane's execution. (Henry VIII actually CHANGED the law forbidding execution of the mentally insane JUST to execute her!) This is merely passed over.
The author is definately sympathetic to Jane's situation. She defends her saying that it would be 'silly' for Jane Rochford to be sympathetic to Mary I's plight while her own Boleyn in-laws were in power... yet throughout the book the author suggests that Jane may have even been close to Mary I in court - albeit this is through 'maybe's' 'could haves' 'might haves'.
In fact, what angered me more about this book was that save for the facts concerning Jane's legal issues (mainly, her marriage to George Boleyn), the book is full of 'guesses' and 'might haves'. A book that suggests to be a 'true story' didn't even solidly argue a lot of the points they put forward. It didn't even try to guess why Jane & George never had issue (children) or why Jane chose to stay single after her husband's execution? The first part of the book in fact goes into great detail about Henry VIII and his plight in marrying Anne Boleyn, which, while I can understand why it is relevant for Jane's backstory & in helping understand what her motivations "MIGHT" have been... it is irksome to read page upon page about Henry & Anne, when you wanted a book about Jane.
I do not doubt the writer did her research, and there is just sadly not much detail left concerning Jane Boleyn's life to truly know the 'TRUTH' of her story or her shortcomings. If you are a Tudor history fanatic, I would suggest skipping this book, as it doesn't offer very much insight on the life of Jane. In some cases, the argument which the author puts forth would have been better placed in a paper than enough 'new' information to fill a book.
Indeed, if you are new in your knowledge about the Tudor-era England, this book will be of some use and give you an interesting viewpoint to the life of Lady Jane Parker, who would become Jane Boleyn aka The Viscountess of Rochford.
If you are not new, such as myself, sadly this book doesn't not really give any new introspect to Jane Boleyn's side to the story. In fact, there were times (such as when she was a lady in waiting to Anne of Cleeves) I was hoping would have more of a thorough telling. Even her saucy (if not ill situation) of being used as the go between between her Majesty Katherine Howard and Thomas Culpepper. It is even surprising the author doesn't go indepth amongst the circumstances of Jane's execution. (Henry VIII actually CHANGED the law forbidding execution of the mentally insane JUST to execute her!) This is merely passed over.
The author is definately sympathetic to Jane's situation. She defends her saying that it would be 'silly' for Jane Rochford to be sympathetic to Mary I's plight while her own Boleyn in-laws were in power... yet throughout the book the author suggests that Jane may have even been close to Mary I in court - albeit this is through 'maybe's' 'could haves' 'might haves'.
In fact, what angered me more about this book was that save for the facts concerning Jane's legal issues (mainly, her marriage to George Boleyn), the book is full of 'guesses' and 'might haves'. A book that suggests to be a 'true story' didn't even solidly argue a lot of the points they put forward. It didn't even try to guess why Jane & George never had issue (children) or why Jane chose to stay single after her husband's execution? The first part of the book in fact goes into great detail about Henry VIII and his plight in marrying Anne Boleyn, which, while I can understand why it is relevant for Jane's backstory & in helping understand what her motivations "MIGHT" have been... it is irksome to read page upon page about Henry & Anne, when you wanted a book about Jane.
I do not doubt the writer did her research, and there is just sadly not much detail left concerning Jane Boleyn's life to truly know the 'TRUTH' of her story or her shortcomings. If you are a Tudor history fanatic, I would suggest skipping this book, as it doesn't offer very much insight on the life of Jane. In some cases, the argument which the author puts forth would have been better placed in a paper than enough 'new' information to fill a book.
November 14, 2016
Like so many 'popular' history books this is written by someone who is neither an academic nor a historian and I'm afraid in shows in her methodology, thinking and general approach. This is a book driven by a personal desire to vindicate a figure who has been vilified by history but sadly there is no evidence to offer the other side of the story (and plenty, although Fox denies or erases it, to support if not prove the conventional reading). As a result this book is full of 'might have', 'probably', 'possibly' and 'perhaps'.
Fox frequently attributes feelings and emotions to Jane Parker that other people had, along the lines of if someone else thought something then Jane must have too. Sometimes this might have been true, for example when discussing the impact of the young Henry VIII on young women of the court, but there is nothing to indicate that this is the case and so the whole (light) argument of the book is built on very flimsy and unstable foundations.
That said, this is a really enjoyable read if you stop thinking about it as history and view it as a novel. Fox has a flowing style and the ability to pick out telling detail that creates a vivid and real tapestry. Sometimes her style grates (colloquialisms such as Katherine's gynecological history was "a nightmare" stand out, or Henry VIII loving 'executive toys' on his desk...) but generally this is a fascinating - if historically flawed - read.
Do also be aware that this really isn't - and can't be - the story of Jane Boleyn: two thirds of the book re-tells the story of the Boleyns and specifically Anne's triumph and fall, and the remaining third covers the other marriages and particularly Catharine Howard's fall and the execution of Jane.
Too many popular 'historians' are given the title without any actual training or background in history and then are feted for excellent research. I'm afraid that despite her academically-impeccable husband John Guy, Fox falls into the same category as Sarah Gristwood, Alison Weir, and others. (Although to be fair the issue with Fox is the complete lack of sources, not her critical evaluation of them and their biases and reliability which is frequently the problem with other 'historians' e.g. Weir).
So overall I really enjoyed reading this book and would recommend it - but treat it like a Philippa Gregory novel rather than researched and verified 'history'.
Fox frequently attributes feelings and emotions to Jane Parker that other people had, along the lines of if someone else thought something then Jane must have too. Sometimes this might have been true, for example when discussing the impact of the young Henry VIII on young women of the court, but there is nothing to indicate that this is the case and so the whole (light) argument of the book is built on very flimsy and unstable foundations.
That said, this is a really enjoyable read if you stop thinking about it as history and view it as a novel. Fox has a flowing style and the ability to pick out telling detail that creates a vivid and real tapestry. Sometimes her style grates (colloquialisms such as Katherine's gynecological history was "a nightmare" stand out, or Henry VIII loving 'executive toys' on his desk...) but generally this is a fascinating - if historically flawed - read.
Do also be aware that this really isn't - and can't be - the story of Jane Boleyn: two thirds of the book re-tells the story of the Boleyns and specifically Anne's triumph and fall, and the remaining third covers the other marriages and particularly Catharine Howard's fall and the execution of Jane.
Too many popular 'historians' are given the title without any actual training or background in history and then are feted for excellent research. I'm afraid that despite her academically-impeccable husband John Guy, Fox falls into the same category as Sarah Gristwood, Alison Weir, and others. (Although to be fair the issue with Fox is the complete lack of sources, not her critical evaluation of them and their biases and reliability which is frequently the problem with other 'historians' e.g. Weir).
So overall I really enjoyed reading this book and would recommend it - but treat it like a Philippa Gregory novel rather than researched and verified 'history'.
December 7, 2014
This book is full of little stinging bugs that fly out and bite the reader all the time. Little annoyances. Let's start with this one: "When she attended the Field of Cloth of Gold, Jane had wandered through the Great Hall of Henry's temporary palace at Guisnes, spellbound by what she had seen." How does Fox even know ANY of this? According to the notes for Chapter 2, Fox guesses that Mistress Parker from the records present with the English court at the Field of Cloth of Gold is indeed Jane Parker (pre-Boleyn). I'm good with the guessing about the identity of Mistress Parker; I think the records come close enough to proving this. And maybe Fox can even guess that Jane wandered through the Great Hall. But spellbound? She was a teenage girl at the time - maybe she was catty about everything and giggled at inappropriate times. Maybe she shat upon the cloths of gold. My guesses about Jane Boleyn's feelings are as good as Fox's. Biting flies: here's another: The sack of Rome by Emperor Charles, Fox claims that "Jane was as horrified as the rest of the court by these outrages." What the what? How does Fox know she was horrified? Maybe she hated the pope. Maybe she didn't even care. Maybe cared more about clothes and boys than the faraway pope. Biting flies. Horses stamp nervously - twice. Annoying. Jane Boleyn is a shadowy figure; if you know anything about Tudor history, you know that she's a supporting character at best. Her portrayal in historical fiction, whether literarily by Hilary Mantel or scandalously by Philippa Gregory is always a gossipy, scheming, unpleasant and at the end treacherous bitch. Julia Fox's subtitle would lead you to believe that we're going to hear the true story of Lady Rochford's infamy. But I'm calling bullshit on this book. If Fox is going to guess about horses stamping and girls being spellbound, She can at the very least make her main study INTERESTING. Or maybe even sympathetic. Fox just made her boring. And Jane Boleyn was probably NOT boring.
March 30, 2018
So many other reviewers have pointed out that Julia Fox has not written so much about Jane Boleyn as much as around Jane Boleyn. While they are right in their assessment, the same assessment would be made of anyone's writing of Jane Boleyn. Jane Boleyn was a woman during a time when even queens were little more than brood mares. Queens were still being placed in nunneries when kings got tired of them or when they would not bear sons. Just a century before, Queen Isabella of Arragon learned as an adult how to read and write and had her daughter Catalina/Katherine of Arragon learn at the same time. So just around the 1500s do we even start to have letters from queens to ambassadors and their family members. Jane Boleyn was no queen. No one cared what some lady-in-waiting had to say. No one saved her letters or kept her journal in hopes that some collector would pay money for Jane's writing/thoughts. We are lucky that we have what we have. We have a history of land and financial agreements of the land-holders, even if they were women, women like Lord Morley's mother/Jane Boleyn's grandmother and of Jane Boleyn's marriage contracts because marriage contracts are legal documents. After George, Jane's husband, dies, Jane makes financial and land deals on her on as a widow and land-holder. So we do know what residences she had, what places she sometimes went to to get away from court.
In addition to the money and land and marriage contracts, we have royal protocol. Due to to protocol, Julia Fox can make some good assumptions based upon what was happening for the queens Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard. And in turn Fox was able to make good surmised about what Jane Boleyn was doing.
The Big Thing. Because Fox has done the best historical research possible We know Jane Boleyn to be human and not a she-monster. Fox has set out to determine Jane's character and her part in the downfall of her husband and sister-in-law. . This clarification gives a better overall historical picture of how Anne Boleyn really fell and cleared up the name of Jane Boleyn.
Thank you Julia Fox. It never sat right with me why Jane Parker Boleyn would have to be so mean. That the stories/depictions of Jane getting worse with every telling in books and tv series, I had wondered. Now I better understand. Thank you.
In addition to the money and land and marriage contracts, we have royal protocol. Due to to protocol, Julia Fox can make some good assumptions based upon what was happening for the queens Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard. And in turn Fox was able to make good surmised about what Jane Boleyn was doing.
The Big Thing. Because Fox has done the best historical research possible We know Jane Boleyn to be human and not a she-monster. Fox has set out to determine Jane's character and her part in the downfall of her husband and sister-in-law. . This clarification gives a better overall historical picture of how Anne Boleyn really fell and cleared up the name of Jane Boleyn.
Thank you Julia Fox. It never sat right with me why Jane Parker Boleyn would have to be so mean. That the stories/depictions of Jane getting worse with every telling in books and tv series, I had wondered. Now I better understand. Thank you.
August 27, 2012
I picked this up because Hilary Mantel spoke well of it in the afterword to "Bring Up The Bodies". The idea is that this is a biography of Jane Boleyn, wife of George Boleyn and sister-in-law to Anne Boleyn. However, Jane herself appears precious little in this account. This is not so much a biography of Jane as a retelling of the rise and fall of the Boleyn and connected families through the lens of what Jane may or may not have possibly seen whilst at court. Again, this is history that reads more like a novel, so I was often unsure as to what was documented fact and what was a probably but unconfirmed situation. Jane herself appears, briefly and tantalizingly, towards the end of the book when Fox goes into a discussion of how Jane secured her financial situation following the downfall of George. I appreciate that Fox might not have had much primary source material to work with that pertained specifically to Jane, but I still felt her absence throughout the entire work. I continued on hoping that Fox would untangle the question as to why Jane allegedly betrayed the Boleyns and yet aided and abetted Katherine Howard in her scandalous end. Again, Fox touches on this only at the very end of the work, though the discussion of how history came to portray Jane is an admirable piece of work. I just wish she had given the rest of the book a similar treatment.
July 25, 2012
I've been trying to reconstruct the process by which this book was published, and I've come to the conclusion that a few years ago, somebody was buying everything with the name "Boleyn" in it. The part that is *actually* about Jane Boleyn (the wife of George Boleyn, who was executed by Henry VIII along with his sister/Henry's wife Anne Boleyn) -- is basically a bit of the last few chapters and then some close reading of historical sources in the epilogue. There is *maybe* enough material here for an interesting article (though when the author tries to use her close readings to support a thesis, it's not a particularly convincing one). This is overall REALLY disappointing for a book that promises the true story of an infamous historical figure. There's still some worthwhile material here -- the first half of the book is a decent enough account of Anne Boleyn's rise and fall, and since the author clearly has more to say about Anne than about her sister in law, I kind of wish she'd written that book, or one about the lives of ladies-in-waiting in general, or basically any focus but this!
June 29, 2012
I finally got around to picking up Julia Fox’s Jane Boleyn: The Infamous Lady Rochford, after having heard good things about the book. As far as I’m aware, it’s the first and only biography of Jane Parker. I was intrigued by and attracted to the book because for many years now I’ve been aware of the misconception that Jane Parker was the individual who witnessed against her husband, George Boleyn, and her sister-in-law, Queen Anne Boleyn, on the concocted charge of incest. Although there is no disputing that Jane Parker was an accessory to the adultery of Queen Catherine Howard, there is actually no evidence to suggest that she was involved in the downfall of the Boleyns: the aforementioned witness was never named and only identified, by Imperial ambassador Eustace Chapuys, as an unnamed lady, and could well have been the Countess of Worcester whose public and out-of-hand argument with her brother had provided some hearsay that had fuelled the invented charges, or Lady Wingfield. Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that Jane remained loyal to the family she had married into, writing to her imprisoned husband and pleading for clemency. As a result, I looked forwards to Julia Fox’s biography finally busting some haggard old myths about Jane.
The writing style is wonderfully smooth, the narrative style flowing and engaging. Indeed, Fox paints a real picture of events, and gets rather creatively imaginative on that front – to the point where I found myself genuinely enjoying the remarkably evocative portrait being painted, but I wonder whether such style would be considered professional for an academic non-fiction history. That may sound harsh, and I must admit I secretly love histories like this because they read so easily and they’re so marvellously evocative of a past age – which is no mean feat to capture – however, Fox often writes about how historical people would have thought and felt without any hint of evidence, and we just can’t know that without direct evidence. I had to caution my enthusiasm for the book as a result. Also, Fox unfortunately gets a pretty big fact wrong, which always sets me on my guard when reading histories. Fox refers to Henry Carey, the son of Mary Boleyn and either her husband William Carey or her lover King Henry VIII, as the first grandchild of Sir Thomas Boleyn and his wife Elizabeth Howard. Actually Catherine Carey was Mary Boleyn’s first child, and the first grandchild of Thomas and Elizabeth, however Fox doesn’t refer to her at all when discussing Mary Boleyn’s potential children by the king. This is a pretty big boo-boo, although I have seen worse. The problem is that when a non-fiction history author makes a mistake this big, one has to question how accurate the rest of the book, and their other works, are.
Fox provides a detailed portrait of Jane’s life, and in the epilogue thoroughly deconstructs the creation of the myth of Jane Parker as scapegoat for the downfall of the Boleyns. Whilst it is clear that the evidence is so patchy that we cannot definitively exonerate Jane, Fox points out that there is simply no evidence to suggest her involvement, and that later historians and biographers who created the myth of Jane as scapegoat did so based on unreliable or non-existent sources – unless they had access to unknown sources that are no longer available to us in the modern age. Moreover, Fox points out that there would have been no logic in Jane desiring to bring down her own husband and impoverish herself – there would have been other options available to her and George had their marriage been unhappy, such as separation, and there is an entire lack of evidence to suggest that it was unhappy. However, I didn’t feel that Fox spent enough time on why Jane became involved in Catherine Howard’s disastrous actions. She does suggest that perhaps Jane was placed in a difficult position – in the early stages of the courtship between Catherine and Culpepper there was no direct evidence that they had yet crossed a line and done anything wrong, and Jane was bound to obey and serve her mistress, and had she reported it a case may have arisen of Catherine’s word against hers, at a time when nothing damning had yet occurred and when Catherine was utterly beloved of her husband the king; however, by the time Catherine and Culpepper had gone too far, Catherine had used Jane as her intermediary far too many times for Jane to escape with complete innocence and without questions being asked about why she did not speak up sooner. Thus, postulates Fox, Jane may have made the fatal decision to keep quiet, desperately hoping that Catherine’s foolish actions would never come to light – and having no knowledge of Catherine’s misspent youth. It’s a fair point, I think, but that’s all Fox has to say about that, and I would have preferred that she had looked into that a little more, since it’s one of the major questions surrounding Jane, maybe have a go at postulating why she participated in the possible case of her not being forced into it.
I listened to this as an audiobook narrated by Julia Barrie. Barrie was a mixed bag as a narrator. I took to her immediately: generally speaking, Barrie has a smooth and engaging voice which really brings the fluid, evocative writing to life. However, her voices whenever quoting are somewhat put on, and she persistently mispronounced certain names and words.
All in all, a couple of minor negatives, but a worthy addition to my bookshelves and an important historical work.
8 out of 10.
The writing style is wonderfully smooth, the narrative style flowing and engaging. Indeed, Fox paints a real picture of events, and gets rather creatively imaginative on that front – to the point where I found myself genuinely enjoying the remarkably evocative portrait being painted, but I wonder whether such style would be considered professional for an academic non-fiction history. That may sound harsh, and I must admit I secretly love histories like this because they read so easily and they’re so marvellously evocative of a past age – which is no mean feat to capture – however, Fox often writes about how historical people would have thought and felt without any hint of evidence, and we just can’t know that without direct evidence. I had to caution my enthusiasm for the book as a result. Also, Fox unfortunately gets a pretty big fact wrong, which always sets me on my guard when reading histories. Fox refers to Henry Carey, the son of Mary Boleyn and either her husband William Carey or her lover King Henry VIII, as the first grandchild of Sir Thomas Boleyn and his wife Elizabeth Howard. Actually Catherine Carey was Mary Boleyn’s first child, and the first grandchild of Thomas and Elizabeth, however Fox doesn’t refer to her at all when discussing Mary Boleyn’s potential children by the king. This is a pretty big boo-boo, although I have seen worse. The problem is that when a non-fiction history author makes a mistake this big, one has to question how accurate the rest of the book, and their other works, are.
Fox provides a detailed portrait of Jane’s life, and in the epilogue thoroughly deconstructs the creation of the myth of Jane Parker as scapegoat for the downfall of the Boleyns. Whilst it is clear that the evidence is so patchy that we cannot definitively exonerate Jane, Fox points out that there is simply no evidence to suggest her involvement, and that later historians and biographers who created the myth of Jane as scapegoat did so based on unreliable or non-existent sources – unless they had access to unknown sources that are no longer available to us in the modern age. Moreover, Fox points out that there would have been no logic in Jane desiring to bring down her own husband and impoverish herself – there would have been other options available to her and George had their marriage been unhappy, such as separation, and there is an entire lack of evidence to suggest that it was unhappy. However, I didn’t feel that Fox spent enough time on why Jane became involved in Catherine Howard’s disastrous actions. She does suggest that perhaps Jane was placed in a difficult position – in the early stages of the courtship between Catherine and Culpepper there was no direct evidence that they had yet crossed a line and done anything wrong, and Jane was bound to obey and serve her mistress, and had she reported it a case may have arisen of Catherine’s word against hers, at a time when nothing damning had yet occurred and when Catherine was utterly beloved of her husband the king; however, by the time Catherine and Culpepper had gone too far, Catherine had used Jane as her intermediary far too many times for Jane to escape with complete innocence and without questions being asked about why she did not speak up sooner. Thus, postulates Fox, Jane may have made the fatal decision to keep quiet, desperately hoping that Catherine’s foolish actions would never come to light – and having no knowledge of Catherine’s misspent youth. It’s a fair point, I think, but that’s all Fox has to say about that, and I would have preferred that she had looked into that a little more, since it’s one of the major questions surrounding Jane, maybe have a go at postulating why she participated in the possible case of her not being forced into it.
I listened to this as an audiobook narrated by Julia Barrie. Barrie was a mixed bag as a narrator. I took to her immediately: generally speaking, Barrie has a smooth and engaging voice which really brings the fluid, evocative writing to life. However, her voices whenever quoting are somewhat put on, and she persistently mispronounced certain names and words.
All in all, a couple of minor negatives, but a worthy addition to my bookshelves and an important historical work.
8 out of 10.
May 11, 2009
Too much conjecture, not enough fact. Despite the title, this book was more about Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard than Jane Boleyn, doing little more than tying Jane's whereabouts and functions to the more well-known figures around her. Nearly everything else about her as an individual is guessed by the author, who usually goes for the optimistic view of Jane as a pawn and leaves little room for the fact Jane might just have been a bad, if not somewhat dumb, human being. And, as many others have mentioned, despite in depth research, there just isn't much known about the personal life of Jane Boleyn, which put the author at a disadvantage from the start.
Still, a lack of resources and information is not an excuse for passing mere guesses off as historical fact. Too much "maybe," too little "we definitely known."
Despite the subject matter (the falls of Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard often make for some juicy reading), Fox's book was surprisingly dry in parts, and I often had to fight through certain chapters that did nothing to hold a reader's interest.
Not recommended.
Still, a lack of resources and information is not an excuse for passing mere guesses off as historical fact. Too much "maybe," too little "we definitely known."
Despite the subject matter (the falls of Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard often make for some juicy reading), Fox's book was surprisingly dry in parts, and I often had to fight through certain chapters that did nothing to hold a reader's interest.
Not recommended.
November 20, 2020
Fascinating must read book!
July 20, 2010
I was so excited to read this book to finally get some insight into the motives and life of this historically fascinating yet mysterious woman. Unfortunately, she is apparently mysterious because there is not much information about her in the historical record and this book does little to shed light on who she actually was, what role she played in her husband and sister-in-law's deaths, and what her motives were. Instead this is simply a poorly told history of Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard that occasionally tries to tie Jane in by saying things like "Still, as even Jane knew, the Duke of Norfolk would not put himself at risk by opposing Anne."
When Fox does actually talk about Jane, it is generally to make assumptions about her knowledge or opinions which are not backed up by references or discussion. She presents theories contrary to popular view (such as hypothesizing that Jane and George had a happy marriage, that Jane and Anne were trusting friends, and that Jane did not present information to support the incest claim during George's downfall) with scant historical records to back them up.
Fox presents the entire narrative as if it were the script to a mini-series, with frequent details about dress and serving wear that could not possibly be backed up by historical references, rather than as a frank look at an historical figure. She seems to want to believe the best in Jane in the face of an almost complete lack of real information about who this woman truly was. As a reader of history, I would prefer to be told the facts and the possible conclusions that can be drawn from what is known about Jane Boleyn rather than being presented with fiction in the guise of biography. The only truly enlightening discussion in this book takes place in the bibliographical notes at the end.
When Fox does actually talk about Jane, it is generally to make assumptions about her knowledge or opinions which are not backed up by references or discussion. She presents theories contrary to popular view (such as hypothesizing that Jane and George had a happy marriage, that Jane and Anne were trusting friends, and that Jane did not present information to support the incest claim during George's downfall) with scant historical records to back them up.
Fox presents the entire narrative as if it were the script to a mini-series, with frequent details about dress and serving wear that could not possibly be backed up by historical references, rather than as a frank look at an historical figure. She seems to want to believe the best in Jane in the face of an almost complete lack of real information about who this woman truly was. As a reader of history, I would prefer to be told the facts and the possible conclusions that can be drawn from what is known about Jane Boleyn rather than being presented with fiction in the guise of biography. The only truly enlightening discussion in this book takes place in the bibliographical notes at the end.
August 11, 2009
I had a hard time seeing this as Jane's story. There just didn't seem to be enough hard documentation of Jane Boleyn's life to make a really good biography. While Fox did a good job of constructing her life based on roll calls & invitation lists, anything specific to Jane (her feelings, her impressions, etc.) was all based on supposition. So she never bounced out of the page in any real-life way for me.
Having said that, I really learned a lot about the Boleyn family, Henry VIII & the times. My studies in the past have generally started with Queen Elizabeth, so I came to this book with only basic knowledge. I can't say I developed any super-great sympathy for Anne (or really any of the figures written about. So many were mentioned I gave up trying to keep them straight!) None of the queens earned my sympathy (although maybe Katherine did to an extent.) It's true that wealth & power really make people do crazy things!
Over all, I think Fox would have done better had she based her book on the Boleyn family as a whole, rather than try to focus on Jane. I understand that she was interested in Jane & putting her story aright, but she still could have included Jane as part of the family. An even better option (in my opinion) would have been to use her research to write an accurate historical fiction, something like Anna Lee Waldo's "Sacajawea." Then she could have brought the character to life as she saw her in her imagination, without being constricted by what little she had in the way of documentation. Told in this way, I would have still learned all I did, but probably would have enjoyed it a lot better. Not only that, but I probably would have felt something more of appreciation for the characters once they were more than names on a roll call.
Having said that, I really learned a lot about the Boleyn family, Henry VIII & the times. My studies in the past have generally started with Queen Elizabeth, so I came to this book with only basic knowledge. I can't say I developed any super-great sympathy for Anne (or really any of the figures written about. So many were mentioned I gave up trying to keep them straight!) None of the queens earned my sympathy (although maybe Katherine did to an extent.) It's true that wealth & power really make people do crazy things!
Over all, I think Fox would have done better had she based her book on the Boleyn family as a whole, rather than try to focus on Jane. I understand that she was interested in Jane & putting her story aright, but she still could have included Jane as part of the family. An even better option (in my opinion) would have been to use her research to write an accurate historical fiction, something like Anna Lee Waldo's "Sacajawea." Then she could have brought the character to life as she saw her in her imagination, without being constricted by what little she had in the way of documentation. Told in this way, I would have still learned all I did, but probably would have enjoyed it a lot better. Not only that, but I probably would have felt something more of appreciation for the characters once they were more than names on a roll call.
February 27, 2012
The closest I've come to the subject matter of this book is Weir's 'The Lady in the Tower' (2009).
Julia Fox's 'Jane Boleyn-The Infamous Lady Rochford' was published in 2007. Of course, the story of Anne Boleyn, with the enduring mystery of her downfall, has been pored over from the sixteenth century to the present day. But who was Jane Boleyn? Her standing in Tudor history is clearly not as great as Anne's, and the historical documentation trail for Jane is extremely scant. Yet history has been equally malignant to both these women.
Jane Parker served at court under Henry and Katherine of Aragon, when she married George Boleyn, younger brother of Anne, she became witness to intrigue and tragedy all the way to Katherine Howard's demise and Jane's own death on the scaffold.
Like Weir's defence of Anne, Fox has attacked the 'infamous' label that has stuck to Lady Rochford. I really enjoyed this read. The author has trawled through a mass of state papers, national library records, manuscripts, public record office archives, all the way to contemporary publications. The bibliography is very comprehensive and she makes many references to E.W. Ives and David Starkey but also goes all the way back to John Foxe.
With a subject who so often moves in the background of events much surmise and conjecture has been used to follow Jane Boleyn's story, but the investigative work pays off.
Julia Fox's 'Jane Boleyn-The Infamous Lady Rochford' was published in 2007. Of course, the story of Anne Boleyn, with the enduring mystery of her downfall, has been pored over from the sixteenth century to the present day. But who was Jane Boleyn? Her standing in Tudor history is clearly not as great as Anne's, and the historical documentation trail for Jane is extremely scant. Yet history has been equally malignant to both these women.
Jane Parker served at court under Henry and Katherine of Aragon, when she married George Boleyn, younger brother of Anne, she became witness to intrigue and tragedy all the way to Katherine Howard's demise and Jane's own death on the scaffold.
Like Weir's defence of Anne, Fox has attacked the 'infamous' label that has stuck to Lady Rochford. I really enjoyed this read. The author has trawled through a mass of state papers, national library records, manuscripts, public record office archives, all the way to contemporary publications. The bibliography is very comprehensive and she makes many references to E.W. Ives and David Starkey but also goes all the way back to John Foxe.
With a subject who so often moves in the background of events much surmise and conjecture has been used to follow Jane Boleyn's story, but the investigative work pays off.
January 26, 2012
It's really hard to rate this book! The author's writing is lyrical, descriptive and thoroughly enjoyable, and she gives a vivid picture of the details of daily life for a noblewoman attached to the court of Henry VIII,. However, what other reviewers have said is true: most of this is pure conjecture. The book is filled with statements such as "Jane may have been there with Anne" or "Jane must have felt..." In reality, we really cannot know much about what Jane did or felt, definitively, and we will never know as much about her as we do about her sister in law simply because she was never queen. Ironically, what we do know about her possessions is probably due to the fact that they were inventoried after her execution (as is also the case with Anne).
There is a poignant note, however, in the author's conjectures about how Jane's father may have subtly conveyed his feelings about her death at the scaffold in one of his translated manuscripts, and the epilogue does offer a convincing argument (with citations from the writings of her contemporaries)for what we do NOT know about Jane, but what has apparently been falsely assumed on the basis of comments made during the reign of Elizabeth I: that Jane was instrumental in Anne's death. If the writer is correct, her greatest sins may have been poor judgement and cowardice, not the malice that has so often been portrayed.
There is a poignant note, however, in the author's conjectures about how Jane's father may have subtly conveyed his feelings about her death at the scaffold in one of his translated manuscripts, and the epilogue does offer a convincing argument (with citations from the writings of her contemporaries)for what we do NOT know about Jane, but what has apparently been falsely assumed on the basis of comments made during the reign of Elizabeth I: that Jane was instrumental in Anne's death. If the writer is correct, her greatest sins may have been poor judgement and cowardice, not the malice that has so often been portrayed.
March 12, 2012
So far, I'm astounded by how little paper and ink is devoted to Jane compared to her sister-in-law, Anne. George and Anne have been put to death and there hasn't been a single word--even conjectural--about the relationship between George and Jane! If no relationship can be deduced--despite rumors that a. George was gay or b. George raped his wife on their wedding night, then SAY SO.
We know more about Jane's ancestor's than we know about her. If (for example) no physical description survives, then SAY SO. Don't presume that she must have been pretty and graceful because she was a success (???) at the court of Henry VIII. This is biography, not fiction, and one needs to be careful about speculation. Jane was also favored because she was a part of the Boleyn family who all profited mightily when Henry was besotted by Anne (e.g., land, titles, castles, the usual stuff of a monarch's favor.)
If I change my mind about this book, I'll let everyone know.
Julia Fox is a good writer and does keep up the flow--sometimes too much so. The book becomes more of an overview of part of Henry's reign. That being said, Jane had to keep her own counsel, especially after the executions of her husband and sister-in-law. She hung on at the court by the skin of her teeth.
I'm looking forward to how Fox delves into Jane's notorious relationship with Queen Katherine Howard...
We know more about Jane's ancestor's than we know about her. If (for example) no physical description survives, then SAY SO. Don't presume that she must have been pretty and graceful because she was a success (???) at the court of Henry VIII. This is biography, not fiction, and one needs to be careful about speculation. Jane was also favored because she was a part of the Boleyn family who all profited mightily when Henry was besotted by Anne (e.g., land, titles, castles, the usual stuff of a monarch's favor.)
If I change my mind about this book, I'll let everyone know.
Julia Fox is a good writer and does keep up the flow--sometimes too much so. The book becomes more of an overview of part of Henry's reign. That being said, Jane had to keep her own counsel, especially after the executions of her husband and sister-in-law. She hung on at the court by the skin of her teeth.
I'm looking forward to how Fox delves into Jane's notorious relationship with Queen Katherine Howard...
May 25, 2013
A paper, stretched into a book, about a person who even with very thorough research by the author has left little source material for historians. Often it is more a story of Anne Boleyn and the other queens Jane Boleyn has served, than about the protagonist herself. This is to be expected with a book this size about a woman who has not left enough material to warrant a whole biography by herself, but one wonders why this was turned into a book in the first place.
When the author does come back to Lady Rochford, it sometimes feels as though she herself has almost forgotten who the book was supposed to be about and rushes on to telling the stories of other people. I would have liked more detail on the letter Jane wrote to Cromwell - print it out in its whole length or at least quote long passages. Instead we only get a short passage about the style the letter uses. I would also have liked more thoughts on the fact that Jane's marriage to George Boleyn remained childless as well. For a woman of her times, she must have been under pressure over this, but the author brushes this aspect of her life mostly aside.
Three stars for a more or less entertaining read about things I mostly already knew about.
When the author does come back to Lady Rochford, it sometimes feels as though she herself has almost forgotten who the book was supposed to be about and rushes on to telling the stories of other people. I would have liked more detail on the letter Jane wrote to Cromwell - print it out in its whole length or at least quote long passages. Instead we only get a short passage about the style the letter uses. I would also have liked more thoughts on the fact that Jane's marriage to George Boleyn remained childless as well. For a woman of her times, she must have been under pressure over this, but the author brushes this aspect of her life mostly aside.
Three stars for a more or less entertaining read about things I mostly already knew about.
February 2, 2015
Oh, what to do with this book…If I were rating simply on the quality and depth of information about Jane Boleyn, this might be a two star review and I absolutely understand other reviewers frustration with the amount of speculation and time taken up with both Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard’s stories. But on the other hand, I knew very little about Jane so some of the information about the legal agreements of her marriage, the money worries after her husband’s execution and the precarious but powerful position she held within many Queens’ courts were all new to me. For having read so much fiction and nonfiction on the court and wives of Henry VIII, I was surprised how much there was here to learn about the daily lives of the lesser players and the constant instability of their positions as political favors changed, queens came and went, and families gained and lost power. I have to add a star for how much I enjoyed this book and, speculative or not, I enjoyed the time spent seeing these well-known events through Jane’s eyes.
March 6, 2014
mp3 I'm going to have to grit my teeth to get past this narrator.
ETA - I have acclimatised to the reading voice enough to concentrate on the content. Does anyone remember The Magic Roundabout that used to be tea-time viewing in UK 'back in the day'? It was fun to count how many times the word 'said' was, erm, said, and tally lists were argued over in the playground. I wish I had started a tally list for 'gold' in this tale.
Some parts of this was truly interesting but such a lot we already knew extensively from other sources so I skimmed. I would not necessarily recommend this to anyone.
ETA - I have acclimatised to the reading voice enough to concentrate on the content. Does anyone remember The Magic Roundabout that used to be tea-time viewing in UK 'back in the day'? It was fun to count how many times the word 'said' was, erm, said, and tally lists were argued over in the playground. I wish I had started a tally list for 'gold' in this tale.
Some parts of this was truly interesting but such a lot we already knew extensively from other sources so I skimmed. I would not necessarily recommend this to anyone.
September 7, 2022
Ten years since reading this book, and I still refer to it frequently. Superbly researched and argued. To the reviewers who have complained there’s not enough evidence presented, try reading the endnotes.
did-not-finish
December 28, 2025The fact is, we just don't know much about Jane Boleyn. So she's completely offstage for long stretches of her own biography, and when she is onstage, a lot of it is just speculation about what she might have been thinking and saying and doing. It's not the biographer's fault -- she did her best -- but without much actual source material on Jane, it turns into just another recounting of Henry VIII's marriages with a side of "And here's what Jane probably thought about that." Hence the "did not finish."
April 10, 2025
This book was less about Lady Rochford and more about what was happening around her. I found it disappointing.
February 11, 2009
I am really eager to read this, although I've only read the first chapter and I am a little apprehensive already. I think part of the problem lies in that I'm expecting a pretty big shebang out of this book: it's going to take a lot to convince me that Jane Boleyn/Rochford has been unfairly pilloried by history. My other problem is I'm afraid this book will be more speculation than history. I feel sure that if there was sufficient information on Jane, there would have been a book by now. I think almost everything we know about her is in all likelihood apocryphal. Regardless, I have to check this one out.
Edit: I cannot read one more page of this book. I'm sorry. I appreciate what Fox was trying to do: use the success of Philippa Gregory to propel a fascinating yet obscure Tudor figure to life. I think the concept was great, and I applaud the author for that much, but the execution is just a MASSIVE FAIL. It really just rehashes what we all already know about the events of Henry VIII's court, with some feeble attempts to tie Jane into the thread. There simply is not enough information to go on; Fox should have realized this, instead of publishing several hundred pages of supposition.
While Jane Rochford may deserve a defender (and to my knowledge, she's never had one), she may not. And that's again where this book fails. Fox makes the case for Jane's reputation, and could possibly be correct, but fails to prove anything. Any assertions she makes are far from convincing. "Possibly" should be used sparingly in a history book.
Pet peeves:
1. Please don't tell me "Jane was elated when she saw this and that and Field of Cloth of Gold blah blah." You don't know. I don't know. For all we know, she was seasick and barfing everywhere, forever tarnishing her view of France forever. I want to read a history, not speculative nonfiction.
2. I really couldn't take the little footnotes telling me what things like cloth of silver and gold are. If I'm reading a book on obscure figures from English history, chances are excellent that I'm a huge dork and already know what those things are.
Sorry to be harsh, but ... BLERG.
.... just ... BLERG.
Edit: I cannot read one more page of this book. I'm sorry. I appreciate what Fox was trying to do: use the success of Philippa Gregory to propel a fascinating yet obscure Tudor figure to life. I think the concept was great, and I applaud the author for that much, but the execution is just a MASSIVE FAIL. It really just rehashes what we all already know about the events of Henry VIII's court, with some feeble attempts to tie Jane into the thread. There simply is not enough information to go on; Fox should have realized this, instead of publishing several hundred pages of supposition.
While Jane Rochford may deserve a defender (and to my knowledge, she's never had one), she may not. And that's again where this book fails. Fox makes the case for Jane's reputation, and could possibly be correct, but fails to prove anything. Any assertions she makes are far from convincing. "Possibly" should be used sparingly in a history book.
Pet peeves:
1. Please don't tell me "Jane was elated when she saw this and that and Field of Cloth of Gold blah blah." You don't know. I don't know. For all we know, she was seasick and barfing everywhere, forever tarnishing her view of France forever. I want to read a history, not speculative nonfiction.
2. I really couldn't take the little footnotes telling me what things like cloth of silver and gold are. If I'm reading a book on obscure figures from English history, chances are excellent that I'm a huge dork and already know what those things are.
Sorry to be harsh, but ... BLERG.
.... just ... BLERG.
August 14, 2014
I did my best to quit my Tudors obsession cold turkey. But once in awhile, I see something and can't stop myself.
The reviews for this are kind of meh, and what I've heard so far features the words "probably" and "very well could have" and blah blah blah. But who cares! TUDORS!
----
So, here's the trouble with this book.
If you're picking up a book on Lady Rochford, you have some semblance of an idea of Tudor history. Anyone wanting to learn more about Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn's six fingers ("Who's Ann Berlin?") is not going to be picking up a book about a footnote in history. They're going straight for the meat, not the peas.
If you're even remotely familiar with Tudor history, this book is a yawnfest. You know all this already. Hell, even if all you've read is Phillipa Gregory's Tudor books, which are historical fiction, this is well-tread territory.
I liked the tiny snippets we got into who Jane was. I like the explanation of her upbringing, and the intricacy of her dowry. I like that, after George was gone, she fought (by proxy) with Thomas Boleyn to get a decent stipend. I like that she made connections to stay within the court to keep herself relevant.
But here's the thing.
Did all of that actually happen?
I realize there are records that have her name in them. I can see 75% of the actions attributed to her in this book being accurate.
Here's what I don't like.
"We can assume that..."
"Lady Jane probably..."
"She may very well have..."
Okay, that's not fact. That's saying, "Well, bitch was related, so obviously she was there! I'm sure! And you know. She was her sister-in-law, so they must have been BFFs, so she was most likely in the bed chambers when the little princess was squeezed out!"
Yeah. I'm giving the book two stars because it fed the fires of my never dying Tudor love, but it really isn't recommendable for anyone wanting to learn more about Tudor history.
The reviews for this are kind of meh, and what I've heard so far features the words "probably" and "very well could have" and blah blah blah. But who cares! TUDORS!
----
So, here's the trouble with this book.
If you're picking up a book on Lady Rochford, you have some semblance of an idea of Tudor history. Anyone wanting to learn more about Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn's six fingers ("Who's Ann Berlin?") is not going to be picking up a book about a footnote in history. They're going straight for the meat, not the peas.
If you're even remotely familiar with Tudor history, this book is a yawnfest. You know all this already. Hell, even if all you've read is Phillipa Gregory's Tudor books, which are historical fiction, this is well-tread territory.
I liked the tiny snippets we got into who Jane was. I like the explanation of her upbringing, and the intricacy of her dowry. I like that, after George was gone, she fought (by proxy) with Thomas Boleyn to get a decent stipend. I like that she made connections to stay within the court to keep herself relevant.
But here's the thing.
Did all of that actually happen?
I realize there are records that have her name in them. I can see 75% of the actions attributed to her in this book being accurate.
Here's what I don't like.
"We can assume that..."
"Lady Jane probably..."
"She may very well have..."
Okay, that's not fact. That's saying, "Well, bitch was related, so obviously she was there! I'm sure! And you know. She was her sister-in-law, so they must have been BFFs, so she was most likely in the bed chambers when the little princess was squeezed out!"
Yeah. I'm giving the book two stars because it fed the fires of my never dying Tudor love, but it really isn't recommendable for anyone wanting to learn more about Tudor history.
June 3, 2012
I saw this book on my library shelf and quickly became excited. Most of what I knew of Jane Boleyn, Lady Rochford, stemmed from the two times in her life that she became a part of the center stage in the court of Henry VIII -- when she gave evidence against her husband and helped send him, his sister, and several other men to the scaffold, and then later when she too faced the axe with another of Henry VIII's queens. So, I was thrilled at the chance to learn more about this controversal woman.
I came out of this book with a headache. Though Fox clearly researched her topic, there remained two problems -- most of Jane Boleyn's life is shrouded in mystery (her birth, her childhood, etc), and Fox's style, which is more suited to writing a fictional novel about Jane than a piece of nonfiction. The constant "supposedly", "probably", "perhaps", and so on did a great deal to detract from the book. Where Fox found holes in her research, she filled with claims that she had no way of backing up, which also didn't help matters.
The fictionalized style of the book doidn't help matters. Brief little fictionalized accounts that last maybe a page or two in a nonfiction book don't bother me, but when practically the whole book is written like that? There's a problem. If you want to write a researched, nonfiction book, do it. If you want to write a fictional version of this or that person's life, fine. Don't mix the two. It only weakens the entire package.
I came out of this book with a headache. Though Fox clearly researched her topic, there remained two problems -- most of Jane Boleyn's life is shrouded in mystery (her birth, her childhood, etc), and Fox's style, which is more suited to writing a fictional novel about Jane than a piece of nonfiction. The constant "supposedly", "probably", "perhaps", and so on did a great deal to detract from the book. Where Fox found holes in her research, she filled with claims that she had no way of backing up, which also didn't help matters.
The fictionalized style of the book doidn't help matters. Brief little fictionalized accounts that last maybe a page or two in a nonfiction book don't bother me, but when practically the whole book is written like that? There's a problem. If you want to write a researched, nonfiction book, do it. If you want to write a fictional version of this or that person's life, fine. Don't mix the two. It only weakens the entire package.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 408 reviews