She Wolves: The Notorious Queens of England

by Elizabeth Norton

She Wolves is a history of the 'bad girls' of England's medieval royal dynasties - the queens who earned themselves the reputation of being somehow notorious. Some of them are well known and have been the subject of biographies - Eleanor of Aquitaine, Emma of Normandy, Isabella of France and Anne Boleyn, for example - while others have not been written about outside academic journals. The appeal of these notorious queens, apart from their shared taste for witchcraft, murder, adultery and incest, is that, because they were notorious, they attracted a great deal of attention during their lifetimes. She Wolves reveals much about the role of the medieval queen and the evolution of the role that led, ultimately, to the reign of Elizabeth I, and a new concept of queenship.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Biography, Medieval, Historical, Medieval History, British Literature

288 pages, Kindle Edition

First published May 1, 2008

About the author

Elizabeth Norton is a British historian specialising in the queens of England and the Tudor period. She obtained an Master of Arts in Archaeology and Anthropology from the University of Cambridge in 2003 and a masters degree in European Archaeology from the University of Oxford in 2004.

Elizabeth Norton is the author of five non-fiction works: She Wolves, The Notorious Queens of England (The History Press, 2008), Anne Boleyn, Henry VIII's Obsession (Amberley, 2008), Jane Seymour, Henry VIII's True Love (Amberley, 2009), Anne of Cleves, Henry VIII's Discarded Bride (Amberley, 2009) and Catherine Parr (Amberley, 2010).[2]' She is also the author of two articles: Anne of Cleves and Richmond Palace (Surrey History, 2009) [3] and Scandinavian Influences in the Late Anglo-Saxon Sculpture of Sussex (Sussex Archaeological Collections, 2009)

Reviews

[Bettie · Rating 1 out of 5]

Description: This history deals with the bad girls of England's medieval royal dynasties, the queens who earned themselves a notorious reputation. Some of them are well known and have been the subject of biography—Eleanor of Aquitaine, Emma of Normandy, Isabella of France, and Anne Boleyn, for example—while others have not been written about outside academic journals. The appeal of these notorious queens, apart from their shared taste for witchcraft, murder, adultery, and incest, is that because they were notorious they attracted a great deal of attention during their lifetimes. This study reveals much about the role of the medieval queen and the evolution of the role that led, ultimately, to the reign of Elizabeth I and a new concept of queenship.

Opening: Medieval England saw many queens. Some are remembered as saintly, or at least very nearly saintly, some are barely remembered at all and others are remembered as being truly notorious. Every century from the eighth to the sixteenth boasted at least one notorious queen who would provide scandal for chroniclers’ works for centuries to come. Their reputation and the salacious details of their lives that survive make these women some of the most vivid and interesting personalities of the medieval period. However, their lives were not always recorded truthfully.

Having just read She-Wolves: The Women Who Ruled England Before Elizabeth last week, this encounter will be with those queens that were not in that.

DUCK! - I am slinging this one at the wall right now. I can't think of a single reader of history who would relish this supermarket newstand magazine style of puerile writing. Go for that Castor one instead.

[Cara · Rating 1 out of 5]

This "history" of so-called "notorious" queens of England is nothing more than a gossip column in book form--with all the superficiality and factual errors one would expect from a gossip column. There are several problems with the book. First, each entry manages to be both too general for the knowledgeable reader and too vague for the newcomer. For example, in the introductory chapter leading to the Wars of the Roses queens (Margaret of Anjou and Elizabeth Woodville), the author (Elizabeth Norton) summarizes the historical background in approximately 1.5 pages. That's far too little to help a Cousins' War-novice make sense of what was going on at any given time for each queen. The political situation is poorly explained, and the queens' tales lack context. At the same time, Norton doesn't do much analysis of each queen's life, instead relying on variations of the following themes: (1) She wouldn't have been judged so harshly if she were a man; (2) As a foreign-born queen she was without friends to defend her/As an English-born queen, she was without powerful friends to protect her; or (3) She didn't understand/realize how deeply she was disliked. Although non-conformance with gender stereotypes no doubt impacted the perception of certain queens in particular (Isabella of France and Margaret of Anjou are the most obvious examples), that's not the only explanation for the way these women were viewed.

Second, it appears that Norton has never heard of any sources other than chronicle writers. Many modern historians have been able to mine a lot of information from things like Exchequer records or Pipe Rolls, but the author doesn't appear to have reviewed any of those sources or the works of authors that have digested them. Perhaps more surprisingly, the author doesn't appear to have used sources such as the Paston Letters, which give us a middle-class view of England during the York-Lancaster conflict. Incorporating these sources would have made each portrait deeper and richer.

Third, every time Norton can adopt the gossip of the times (or the later chronicles), she unhesitatingly does. So Eleanor of Aquitaine probably had an affair with Geoffrey of Anjou and then hated Henry II for his extramarital affairs, and Isabella of France had a passionate affair with Roger Mortimer, regardless of whether there really is evidence of any of these rumors.

Fourth, there are factual errors that should have been easily avoided. For example, to show that Isabella of France never got over Mortimer, the author has her buried beside him at Greyfriar's Church. Even if Mortimer was ever interred there, his body was relocated on his widow's request (probably to Wigmore, though Mortimer's burial site is now lost) about a year after his death. Isabella died 28 years after Mortimer, between 25-27 years after his body was moved. This isn't difficult information to unearth. A Google search would turn up the information in less than 5 minutes.

Fifth, the author is hampered, as all authors of these time periods are hampered, by the absence of sources that provide detailed information regarding people's motives and states of mind. Still, it's lazy writing to say things such as, "Isabella must have felt . . . ," "Anne must have been worried . . . .," or "Catherine must have been terrified . . . ." Maybe they were, or maybe they thought/felt/experienced something completely different.

This isn't good or even mediocre popular history. It's poorly researched and written, and superficial to an alarming degree. There are better surveys to read. I recommend avoiding this one.

[Tania · Rating 3 out of 5]

I love Henry VIII books, but have read quite a few now, so wanted to move on to HF of other kings and queens, but did not know which would be most interesting. I thought this book would be helpful in selecting some possibilities. It did, but it also gave me a much better idea of how things changed (and not) for queens with the Norman conquest.

To be a good queen you had to:
1. Have sons (preferbly the kings)
2. Be of noble birth (much safer for the queen to be chosen from Europe than from the English nobility)
3. be pious to the point of saintliness (if you fail to bear the king any children, rather say it's because you're too saintly to consumate the wedding)

After reading this book I've decided to try and find books on the following:
1. King Cnut, Emma of Normandy and Aelfgifu
2. Isabella of France
3. Eleanor of Aquitaine
4. Eleanor of Provence
5. Isabella of France
6. Margaret of Anjou
So any suggestions would be welcome.

[Maja - BibliophiliaDK ✨ · Rating 1 out of 5]

To begin with I was positive about this book until I caught onto one particularly disturbing thing, that completely ruined it all for me, for once I had this in my sight I couldn't focus on anything else; Norton has the most annoying habbit of always using the phrase 'must have'. And I do believe ALWAYS!!!! Let me demonstrate by turning to a random page and count the number of times she uses it:
1)Anne must have been exhausted
2)Anne must have known
3)Anne adopted as her motto, 'the most happy' and must have felt secure
4)The sex of their child must have been
(page 194 about Anne Boleyn) This was only from one page. Let's say that this is average in a book of 285 pages. That gives us a total of 1140 times that this phrase is used!!! Sure, this is an exaggeration, but I believe I've made my point clear. This is by far the worst language I have ever read. Terrible.

[Emma · Rating 3 out of 5]

2.5 stars

[Claire · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fascinating read, and a faster one than I expected. This is down to a few factors, I felt. Firstly, a lack of sources for the early Anglo-Saxon queens, making Part One brief in writing if not in scope. Secondly, Norton doesn't get bogged down in details; she sticks to the topic, brings in only what is necessary to ensure a complete picture of each queen's life, and keeps things brief. Thirdly, Norton's prose is sparse and simple, making it easily readable; a lot of historical non-fiction I've read gets twisted up in formal academic language, and needs yo be read in bite-sized chunks. I was halfway through this book before I realised, with all the Emmas and Aelfgifus kept straight in my head.

It did sometimes read like the dissertation I wrote for my MA; constant referring back to the main theme (plus an overuse of the word 'notorious'), as well as a constant emphasis on the power disparity between kings and queens. I was pleased to see that Norton didn't intend to shine a modern light on all of her She-Wolves, as I feel that would have misrepresented them and their actions, but I could have done without an almost page-by-page reminder that queens were held to different (higher, impossible) standards than their kingly husbands.

That said, the emphasis on it being male chroniclers who did much of the damage was interesting, as were the unbiased portraits of the queens. They are not suddenly feminist icons, but real women, with real and understandable motivations; sometimes for their own ends, sometimes for their children or grandchildren, but in all cases Norton presents the facts, not modern viewpoints. Occasionally she ventures an opinion, or conjecture, but such instances are always clearly presented as such.

I'd definitely recommend this book. It is thin in places, although that feels largely due to a lack of sources, and not to a lack of research or due care. Norton strives to make each queen a fully fleshed-out woman, and to explain the reasons for their notoriety as concisely and accurately as possible. It's got me interested in some of the lesser-known (to me) queens, and was a really good read.

[Leslie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting, especially the earlier parts, which dealt with the queens with whom I was most unfamiliar. Unfortunately, though, while I certainly understand pointing out the biases of the male chroniclers who vilified these women, I felt that Norton took it way too personally and was bending over backwards to justify even the worst behavior as completely understandable in the circumstances. There were also two cases in which Henry V and Henry VI were mixed up (Henry VI lost France - he certainly didn't conquer it), and a lot of the Tudor material was just regurgitated without much originality, i.e., Lady Jane Grey being portrayed as an abused child who despised her husband, which has been questioned if not debunked in the past few years, notably by Leanda de Lisle, who I feel makes a pretty good case.

For those who object to the use of "must have" and "could have" in these books, I do feel the need to point out that especially the earlier you go, the less positive information is known about these women, especially since they were women, so it's almost inevitable if you want to be accurate.

[Shani Black · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found this book really interesting, it's a shame that such interesting women aren't known to anyone unless you search them out.
I agree it wasn't Tolstoy and it could've been written better, but it gets the information across and that's all I care about.

[Bsainsbury · Rating 4 out of 5]

probably needed a "family tree" somewhere to reference.
an interesting read.

[Jennifer · Rating 3 out of 5]

Four Medieval English queens kill, cheat, steal and manipulate to stay in power. Total fun.

[Kyrie · Rating 3 out of 5]

It lacks the spark that makes historical fiction entertaining. It just didn't hold my interest enough to make it worth finishing right now, so it goes back on the to-read shelf.

[Lois · Rating 3 out of 5]

2.5 rounded up
History lite and gossipy!

[K. · Rating 3 out of 5]

It’s particularly dry reading (as it’s more of a thesis than anything else), but it does give you a lot of useful facts, particularly in infamous queens, or ‘she wolves’ as the title describes. In particular, most infamous queens can be excused by today’s standards, particularly if you realize the queens can fall under at least one of these headings:


+ Being too ambitious, despite how they were raised or used to (influenced by parents during childhood), having a more equal relationship with a previous husband
+ On a related note, also being too politically active
+ In some cases, not being ambitious enough (aka, not politically advantageous for the male authority figure to marry that female)
+ Disparaged by the lower classes and/or privileged male writers for any reason
+ Being “female” (easier target for critics), or not falling under the ‘ideal’ female/queen figure
+ Not bearing male children (the ever-constant importance placed on male heirs)
+ Being of foreign birth than the country she ruled (or different religion)

Essentially, the women were frequently blamed because they were – rather often – easy targets due to their gender.

(Sidenote: I like the author’s attempt to create a chronological timeline among the queens she’s chosen and how they were related to one another.)


Since the purpose of the book was to bring a more modern awareness of the historical hypocrisy that comes up in dealing with primary sources, by bring a more human understanding of the she-wolves by explaining how it could be interpreted into different ways, and bringing in the women’s childhood and previous experiences – it definitely succeeds in showing you that, as in the famous expression – history is always written by the eye of the beholder. And that beholder can make or break a reputation.

Which is why the author explains:

It would be naïve to assert that all the queens were innocent of the crimes of which they were accused. There is no doubt that some were, indeed, guilty as charged. (…) That all these women carried out these actions is not in doubt. However, when the facts of their lives are discussed it is difficult to see how they can always be considered entirely blameworthy. (…) Until very recently, history has almost exclusively been written by men with their own male point of view. Generally the women described here were not passive or retiring and, as a result of this, they were seen as a threat to the established male order and targets ripe for attack. Women were simply not expected to have political power and, as a result, many queens found an inherent contradiction in their role which was, after all, a political and public one.

[Elizabeth · Rating 4 out of 5]

Medieval England saw many queens. Some are remembered as saintly, some are barely remembered at all, and others are remembered as being truly notorious. Every century from the eighth to the sixteenth boasted at least one notorious queen who would provide scandal for chroniclers' works for centuries to come. Their reputation and the salacious details of their lives that survive make these women some of the most vivid and interesting personalities of the medieval period. However, their lives were not always recorded truthfully. Chroniclers and other writers had their own motivations for writing about the women which were distinct from simply recording events as they happened. Some accused queens were guilty of their crimes, others were innocent -- such matters were not important to those writing, who were more interested in the subject of female power than making a detailed analysis of the facts. Medieval women did not conventionally wield power and the very existence of queens was something of a contradiction when women sought to redefine the queenly role as more than just the traditional king's wife/consort.
The women discussed in this book all, for one reason or another, failed to live up to the model of a good (passive) queen and often went so far beyond what was expected of them that they were quickly considered notorious. The boundaries defined by the "good queen" model were restrictive and if a royal woman failed to act in this way, regardless of the reason, she left herself open to attack.
The lives of these women make for interesting reading and today they appear fascinating compared to the colorless good queens. However, even today they are still viewed as somewhat unsavory and have been labeled as "She Wolves."

[Michael Hinsley · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wonderful in parts. Also helps with genealogy. Best account of Mathilda and Stephen, and great background on the importance of Anjou. All in all a good read.

[Becky · Rating 2 out of 5]

I just couldn't finish this. Too gossip column like to borrow another reviewers phrase.

[Ruby · Rating 4 out of 5]

i would have given it 5 stars if the part about the tudor queens had been better written.

[KeAnne · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book & easily readable

[Lyn Brown · Rating 5 out of 5]

I thought this an excellent read.

[Jennifer Jeffris · Rating 3 out of 5]

if you know much history from this time you won't learn a lot. Anyone who knows me knows I like the queens better than the kings, so I was happy to reaxd it.

[Faye]

I'm putting this on-hold for now (11/09/17). Not a bad read, but not exactly engaging either. I'll come back to it another time.

[Mary Rose · Rating 2 out of 5]

Anyone trying to write this book is going to run into a problem and that problem is that for many medieval queens, we don't have a lot of great primary resources for what they were doing or thinking. This dearth of source material certainly isn't Norton's fault. However, it is Norton's fault that she fills in the cracks with absolute nonsense.
When reading, Norton's constant use of phrases like "she MUST have felt" or "it MUST have been" jumps out from the page. It's in every paragraph. This would not be such a problem if Norton didn't have such a problem getting inside the head of medieval people. She has no concept of what it was like to live in the middle ages, no idea of what their priorities were. As an example, when writing about Joan de Navarre she writes that "Joan must have been apprehensive about her marriage to the middle-aged Duke." Norton, you are 140ish pages into this book by now! You have written about half a dozen women who were married to much older men. Why are you projecting your modern squeamishness onto these medieval women? I'm baffled by how much she must have read to get this book done and how little she still seems to understand about royal families and their priorities.
Then, she goes onto add absolute nonsense into her scholarship as well. Again about Joan, she writes that "No evidence survives of Joan and Henry's meetings with each other but it is likely there was a mutual attraction."
NORTON.
ELIZABETH, DEAR.
If there is no evidence, there is "likely" nothing! Stop it!
Hard pass.

[Sarah · Rating 3 out of 5]

Part-read (chapters on the queens in whom I had an existing interest), but far too light and “tabloid” in style, especially having recently read the excellent and well-researched “The Secret Queen” (on Eleanor Talbot / Edward IV).
I may return to this at a later time, as I’m intrigued to learn a little more about the Danish and Saxon women who held positions of power prior to the Norman conquest.
I’d recommend this to younger readers wishing to get an overview of the role of various powerful women in English history. However, I feel the book would be disappointing to serious history buffs with existing familiarity with the subject matter.

[Tiffany · Rating 3 out of 5]

I admit it, I have a thing for historical works - fictional or otherwise - about women. This booked popped out at me from a library shelf, so naturally I scooped it up. "She Wolves: The Notorious Queens of Medieval England" is, I imagine, a printing of Norton's Ph. D. thesis. This is not necessarily a bad thing, since the level of analysis is reasonably high (and in this case, the footnotes can be skipped without dire penalty to understanding). Unfortunately, though, Norton makes a few assumptions about the reader's background knowledge that were not borne out in me - I would really have appreciated a timeline listing the English queens, in order, with their dates and places of birth. Aelfgifu and Alfthryth were interesting characters, given how little evidence we actually have about them, but I couldn't help but feel like I'd just walked into the middle of a conversation. And as you might expect from a more scholarly work, the prose was dry and occasionally ponderous, but not so bad that I was ever tempted to put down the book. If you're interested in a scholarly discussion on a simple theme - that females engaging in male behaviors were treated badly by their male chroniclers - then this book should work for you just fine.

[Patricia Martin · Rating 3 out of 5]

The author's thesis is that women in England, preConquest, and under the Normans were not expected to have strength or ambition to rule, and if they tried they were considerd 'unnatural' and 'unwomanly'. The wives or mothers of the saxon kings are not ones that are familiar to modern readers, but if they had power or attempted to have power, their society (and the men who wrote histories) usually classifed them as evil. After the Norman Conquest, it was acceptable to have a wife or mother as regent for a king who was off at war, but not to try to rule for themselves, or be a regent for a young son. Ms Norton covers the queens up through "Bloody" Mary, some of whom (to present day people) seemed to act as we would expect an ambitious woman of royal birth to act. But until Elizabeth showed a woman could rule, no one believed, or wanted a woman to succeed.
I enjoyed the book but found it tiresome to have Ms Norton keep repeating why the women were notorious to their contemporaries.

[Trish · Rating 3 out of 5]

Starting out I'm finding it interesting. I've read a lot of historical fiction, not just from the Tudor era but from the Matilda vs. Stephen era as well. It may help that I'm familiar with the geneologies already, but I like this for how factual it is, but one has to be careful. The author makes some assumptions as to the personalities and feelings of the women, but she does at least provide the background information and rationale.

I've read quite a a bit in the form of historical fiction about the Queens described in these pages and I had no problem keeping up with the information. There were family trees at the beginning of each section in my Kindle edition. Over all it was quite nice to read an actual historical account of these women after reading about them in the context of historical fiction.

[Xenia0201 · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a comprehensive synopsis of Medieval and Tudor queens who were notorious during their reigns for being accused of crimes ranging from greed to murder. It was well researched, save for a few mis-truths, such as the myth of Lady Jane Grey struggling to find the execution block. I found this book's greatest tragedy was the lack of editing, and Norton's injections of supposed emotion or thought of the said queen consort. "She must have been relieved", or "she must have felt" was included countless times throughout the entire book, which made me feel I was reading an eighth grade essay. Other reviews have suggested this was a printing of Norton's thesis for her PhD, which would would be even more tragic! Otherwise, it was an interesting read, especially for the lesser known women she chose to include.

[Michell Karnes · Rating 4 out of 5]

While I enjoyed this book I thought author did a lot of speculating on the individual's thoughts and feelings. Of course for many of these queens there is little documented evidence. I also found from reading other books of similar topics that this contradicted what I have read from other authors which leaves me wondering which facts are true. I also understand these women often became know for their aggressive behavior due to circumstances beyond their control or simple because they acted in a way that was contrary to accepted female behavior. The author points this out repeatedly. I did enjoy the book as a way of increasing my knowledge of these early queens.

[Corinne Fitzgerald · Rating 2 out of 5]

Poor spelling, repetitive, and written in an annoyingly condescending tone of voice. Yes, I understand, accounts of the time were written by men who hated/feared women, but do I really need to be told this seventy times per chapter? Eventually I was on the side of the chroniclers just because I found this writer so irritating.
The only redeemable feature are the women chosen for study; several I actually like - based on opinions formed from other sources - and so I give this book two stars.

[Ginger Jane · Rating 3 out of 5]

I can't stand speculative popular biographies, i.e. "She must have felt...". Otherwise, things were pretty good. Defo improved when we got to the Tudors, I guess because they left enough of their own primary artefacts to not have to assume the way that they felt about a given situation.