What do you think?
Rate this book
Daughter of York
History tells us that the intelligent, wealthy, and powerful Margaret of York had everything any woman could want, except for love. The acclaimed author of A Rose for the Crown takes us between the lines of history and into her heart.
It is 1461: Edward, son of Richard of York, ascends to the throne, and his willful sister, Margaret, immediately becomes a pawn in European politics as Edward negotiates her marriage. The young Margaret falls deeply in love with Anthony Woodville, the married brother of Edward's queen, Elizabeth. But Edward has arranged for his sister to wed Charles, son of the Duke of Burgundy, and soon Margaret is setting sail for her new life. Her official escort: Anthony Woodville.
Margaret of York eventually commanded the respect and admiration of much of Europe, but it appears to history that she had no emotional intimate. Anne Easter Smith's rare gift for storytelling and her extensive research reveal the love that burned at the center of Margaret's life, adding a new dimension to the story of one of the fifteenth century's most powerful women.
557 pages, Paperback
First published February 12, 2008
116 people are currently reading
5152 people want to read
About the author
Anne Easter Smith
9 books579 followersA native of the UK, Anne Easter Smith is an award-winning historical novelist who has lived in the US for more than 40 years. Her six novels about the York family during the Wars of the Roses are published by Touchstone at Simon & Schuster and others. She was the Features Editor at the Press-Republican in Plattsburgh, NY for 10 years, and her writing has been featured in a number of national magazines. Anne welcomes visitors at her website at: www.anneeastersmith.com"
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 227 reviews
August 14, 2019
An interesting story about a historical figure you really never hear about! Love this author's writing!
September 23, 2011
Daughter of York showed promise. The book's summary made me excited to read it. In the beginning it seemed like a well-written, intereseting novel (helped along by Anne Easter Smith's saying in the acknowledgments that the fabulous historian Ann Wroe gave it her stamp of approval). However, after the beginning it started to lag in pace and interest. I tried to hold on. But like a sinking ship, York sank, going from mediocre to boring.
The book starts out with Margaret of York becoming a princess. When her unmarried brother, Edward, claims the crown she becomes the first lady at court. As the sister to the English king, Margeret is a powerful chip in the royal marriage game and there are several powerful European rulers vying for her hand. Edward chooses Charles, Duke of Burgundy, for Margaret to marry but her heart already belongs to the married noble, Anthony Woodville.
There is no historical evidence that Anthony and Margaret had an affair or were even friends. Smith admits this in her author's note. The fabrication of this main story thread took away a substantial amount of the story's authenticity. It seemed like Smith invented a romance were there was none, perhaps because she thought it would make Margaret's life more interesting to the reader. Also, as soon as Margaret arrived at Burgundy, the book got tedious. Burgundian history, which is fascinating, was barely touched upon and the politics in that land at the time were barely skimmed over. Margaret, who was an intelligent and skilled stateswoman, would often rule in Charles' absence. Instead of focusing on Margaret's adept ruling abilities, which were well known, the novel focused on her friendship with a dwarf named Fortunata and her sex life.
Fortunata is a made up character. Margaret never had a jester type figure present at her court with this name. While I understand the need to have Margaret have a female confidante in the story, the fact that the two relationships that Smith focused on were fictional bothered me. I like to have more history in my historical fiction. The focus on Margaret's sex life also detracted from my interest in the story. We could have been spared a few descriptions of Margaret's agonizing nights with Charles. The author depicted Margaret's whole life-and all her thoughts-as being consumed by an illicit affair with Anthony. Margaret of York was an astute, highly religious woman living in the 14th century. Her life was consumed by her faith and aiding her family's rule of England, not with imaginary romances. This is part of a trend in works of historical fiction: to sexualize female characters to the exclusion of anything else of interest about them. Strong, interesting women like Margaret are reduced to the sum of their sex lives. If Daughter of York had focused more on the history of Margaret's accomplishments it could have been a good read.
If you're looking for really great dialogue in a novel about the Yorks try Sharon Kay Penman's The Sunne in Splendour, also set during the War of the Roses. If you want to learn more about Margaret of York later in life, try the history The Perfect Prince by Ann Wroe.
The book starts out with Margaret of York becoming a princess. When her unmarried brother, Edward, claims the crown she becomes the first lady at court. As the sister to the English king, Margeret is a powerful chip in the royal marriage game and there are several powerful European rulers vying for her hand. Edward chooses Charles, Duke of Burgundy, for Margaret to marry but her heart already belongs to the married noble, Anthony Woodville.
There is no historical evidence that Anthony and Margaret had an affair or were even friends. Smith admits this in her author's note. The fabrication of this main story thread took away a substantial amount of the story's authenticity. It seemed like Smith invented a romance were there was none, perhaps because she thought it would make Margaret's life more interesting to the reader. Also, as soon as Margaret arrived at Burgundy, the book got tedious. Burgundian history, which is fascinating, was barely touched upon and the politics in that land at the time were barely skimmed over. Margaret, who was an intelligent and skilled stateswoman, would often rule in Charles' absence. Instead of focusing on Margaret's adept ruling abilities, which were well known, the novel focused on her friendship with a dwarf named Fortunata and her sex life.
Fortunata is a made up character. Margaret never had a jester type figure present at her court with this name. While I understand the need to have Margaret have a female confidante in the story, the fact that the two relationships that Smith focused on were fictional bothered me. I like to have more history in my historical fiction. The focus on Margaret's sex life also detracted from my interest in the story. We could have been spared a few descriptions of Margaret's agonizing nights with Charles. The author depicted Margaret's whole life-and all her thoughts-as being consumed by an illicit affair with Anthony. Margaret of York was an astute, highly religious woman living in the 14th century. Her life was consumed by her faith and aiding her family's rule of England, not with imaginary romances. This is part of a trend in works of historical fiction: to sexualize female characters to the exclusion of anything else of interest about them. Strong, interesting women like Margaret are reduced to the sum of their sex lives. If Daughter of York had focused more on the history of Margaret's accomplishments it could have been a good read.
If you're looking for really great dialogue in a novel about the Yorks try Sharon Kay Penman's The Sunne in Splendour, also set during the War of the Roses. If you want to learn more about Margaret of York later in life, try the history The Perfect Prince by Ann Wroe.
May 7, 2013
I enjoyed AES's last 2 reads A Rose for the Crown and Queen By Right because, she is a good storyteller. Sweeping sagas that would make a perfect Sunday Night Movie. Her books tend to be more biased romantic fiction with lots of sugar thrown in. It's obvious she has a crush on Richard. The man is ALWAYS perfect and loyal...a bit too much even for Richardian fans. In this book she tells an extravagant story about Margaret of York. The first 90 pages were typical AES. Even with ridiculous plots, I laughed as she made me turn the pages. The story begins right before Edward becomes King. It pretty much takes up where Queen By Right left off (but this is a stand alone book, not a sequel.) After Edward becomes King, we see what a playboy he is. Anthony Woodville comes to court (a former trader) and wins the respect of the King as a great Knight. Edward's little sister Margaret, like her brother was born with heavy carnal instincts and Edward sees how they are equal in spirit (I know....ridiculous.) Now those of us who know how this works, knows Margaret will be Edward's pawn and married off (as a virgin)to secure the realm, but in this story Edward tells his little sister it's OK to get her freak on. He catches her with a solider and even winks at them. (Are you rolling your eyes yet?) After her solider crush Margaret develops feelings of lust for Anthony Woodville (who is married) but Edward tells her to "have fun." Then the dwarf "Fortunata" shows up and the story goes totally downhill to me. Fortunata and Margaret become inseperable and we are tortured with reading through her magic tricks and gymnastics. I am well aware courts had silly jesters, but please keep them in the background. AES tries too hard to set scenes. Margeret was always tripping and falling into someone's arms. Richard as a little boy was always crying with pride, while George was playing with his jeweled rings. I skimmed and skimmed some more. In the author's note AES admits to the relationship with Margaret and Anthony being fictional, even though she had found proof they "could" have been close. They might have, but I seriously doubt Edward would have allowed it.
December 4, 2021
Dreadful, 1 star.
I'm sorry but I can't find a better word to describe this book that really cost me effort to finish, and I did it with the hope that it would improve but it never happened, this is the third book I read by this author and definitely will be the last.
The book tells the life of Margaret of York, Duchess of Burgundy as the wife of Charles the Bold Duke of Burgundy, she was also the sister of Richard III and Edward IV, so she belonged to the York house. The book begins in 1461 with Edward IV winning the throne and Margaret turned into an important princess for being the King's unmarried sister, she has more than 20 years old so she is considered too old to remain single but her brother King Edward has big plans for her, but while that happens Margaret witnesses the important events of the country, especially what has to do with her family, such as Edward's marriage to Elizabeth W. The quarrels between Edward and Warwick, George's betrayals against Edward and all those problems , but apart from politics and wars, Margaret is going to get involved in "love affairs" that her brother the King will be happy to allow, of course he does not care that she develops an affair with Anthony Woodwille, but more than just an affair, Margaret and Anthony love each other but obviously they cannot be together which doesnt prevent them from having romance and passion, in the end Margaret is sent to Burgundy to be the Duchess of Charles for a political arrangement, but this doesn't end her love for Anthony, which neither of them will overcome despite the distance and the very different paths they take, in Burgundy Margaret becomes a stepmother what she will do with duty and love, also a duchess with enough authority due to the absences of her husband, to that we add that in England the York house have issues again and again against Lancaster and even problems between the York family , and Margaret has to mediate between her brothers and even help Edward to regain his throne, but even in such difficult moments she only thinks about Anthony and his luck, when her husband dies she will have to take charge of the situation and defend her stepdaughter, traveling to England what she does joyful because she will see again the love of her life Anthony, and the book ends one or two years before 1483, so this story doesn't even count the personal tragedies Margaret faced such as the death of Edward, Richard III and Mary of Burgundy her stepdaughter.
The only thing that I liked about the book and that earned 1 star is that it has an orderly form, well done narration, without typographical errors (or at least I did not detect any), it presents family trees and the characters establishing their connections, in addition I can't rescue anything else, starting with how boring the book is most of the time, I find it hard to believe that for this novel the participation of Margaret was omitted during the pretense of Perkin Warbeck, her attempts to destroy Henry VII, her opinions or actions regarding what happened in 1483, her position when she saw the mistreatment that Jhoanna of Castile "the mad" (sister of Catherine of Aragon, and the legitimate Queen of what is now Spain) received in the hands of Philippe " the handsome "the son of Mary of Burgundy,to who Margaret loved and raised, that's just to mention a few things she witnessed or participated that this book omits, and instead recounts episodes in Margaret's life that are flat and too boring, leaving aside what makes her an outstanding female character, for example: we read pages and pages of her life in burgundy that the book counts as monotonous and completely empty, Margaret interacts with servants, some relatives and no more, her marriage is an arrangement yes we know but I think that doesn't mean that it was devoid of any emotion, and in this story God! what a boring thing, which is a waste having Charles not in vain nicknamed the Bold, one of the most impressive military geniuses in Europe, a rude, violent, deceitful and conspiratorial man but also cultured, skilled and very very intelligent, I doubt that someone as atypical as was Charles could be the graceless husband who tells the novel, the only lights of the story are those historical moments in which Edward IV, George Clarence, Warwick, Richard III or other characters come to spice up Margaret's life, in other words the plot of the book is bad and therefore is not a good read or entertaining.
I still have a bigger complaint and it is the relationship; Margaret / Anthony, this novel is supposed to be historical fiction so it should respect important historical facts, it is not historical romance where a parallel universe is created with historical characters who do things outside of any historical record, taking that into account I must say that I understand that the authors of historical fiction what this novel attempt to be, can take small licenses is not to my personal taste I prefer that they respect the facts but I still respect and understand small changes, including the creation of slight crushes, or even flirtations that serve to give emotion to the story, I even can enjoy them as long as they are small touches to the story and not the main ingredient of it, as in this case, it is really crazy the way in which the author deviates from the facts to continue insisting that Margaret and Anthony Woodwille were the greatest love in the world, and in this sense Margaret only thinks about him, talks about him, cries for him and laughs for him, even when the life of Margaret's brothers is in danger, she doesn't care that, she just prays for Anthony and sighs over and over again for her "beloved", even being married they blatantly write each other and what it's worse, RIDICULOUS AND STUPIDLY it is Anthony who tells his beloved Margaret the most important events in England (many of which Anthony doesn't have reason to know or to care about), the relationship bothered me overall due to the exaggeration, if you are going to write of a historical figure female that you find boring maybe it is better not to write, I really feel that the author completely forgot the customs of the women of England in the fifteenth century, and forgets the characteristics of the woman in question, I truly think the author instead of studying and understanding her protagonis just wants to make Margaret something unreal, and I don't understand, why women would always have to revolve their lives around sexual passion? And why should the best thing in a woman's life be the love for a forbidden man? That doesn't apply today much less 500 years ago, and her love towards Mary? towards her brothers? towards her mother?, towards God?. Those feelings do not seem enough for the author who puts them aside to focus on what she believes is more interesting and important, and look I don't mean that no one lived impossible or forbidden loves, of course there were and are well documented but it turns out that Margaret was not one of those cases, and what is worse, the author ignores and stops saying that Margaret was regent of a duchy as rich and complex as Burgundy, that she was a mediator and supporter of the York with everything she had, that together with her mother-in-law managed to control Charles's temper so that he was less of a tyrant, Margaret was also responsible for raising her husband's daughter and grandchildren from whom the majority of current European monarchs are descendants, which she did in a virtuous and excellent way, but all that the author throws it away to make us read almost 500 pages of a poorly made romance that DIDN'T EXIST and what is more regrettable is that in her final note the author defends it, and places it not as a creative license but as a HISTORICAL FACT, she says that this relationship "was possible", yes well a billion things were possible which doesn't mean that they happened !!!! Later the author tells us that Anthony and Margaret surely coincided in the court of Edward IV, her as the King's sister, and Anthony as the King's brother-in-law, so they must have fallen in love there. This is a Joke, RIGHT ?? !! For the love of God, hundreds of people were in court at the same time but I assure you that they did it without falling in love with each other just because "they were there", then the author adds that since the two were very pious that characteristic in common must have led them to have an eternal love, here I almost take out my eyes, this defense of this love has the same logic as the plot of the novel, do you have any idea how many people were pious at that time? Clearly the author NO, not to mention that two sooooo pious people wouldn't have incurred in the multiple sins that Margaret and Anthony commit in this novel in order to keep their love story alive including adultery, ah but let's not forget that as they both liked to read that is enough historical evidence of their union, which also apparently in the novel was their biggest connection and their main topic of conversation, dear author I can swear by my soul that they were NOT the only ones who read books otherwise there would not have been hundreds of books !!! I am desperate because the author could have even chosen to explore Margaret's marriage if she wanted so much to add the "romantic relationship" factor but apparently it is better to create an affair from NOTHING, I know there were rumours about Margaret not being virgin, as far as I know those rumors came from France that was trying to stop Margaret's wedding, and perhaps Margaret liked Anthony I don't know I wasn't there but It is logical and obvious to me that Edward IV would have never allow the relationship not considering how important was Margaret and her virginity for his reign, and I found impossible to believe that these two were so obsessed with each other for so many years, I'm sure something like that would have never been out of historical records, and even for fiction as happened to me in A rose for Crown, I couldn't hate more this couple what a bad love story we have here.
Another problem is that the author doesn't know how to handle the situation of the names , she writes about a historical period in which 3 or more people have the same name, she doesn't solve this with nicknames or adding title or surname, at least she doesn't do that constantly so it becomes confusing.
Finally I will only add that if I have to read one more time how in love Richard duke of Gloucester is with Kate (yes another "great" invented love that the author created for her novel "A rose for the crown") I swear that I will go crazy , YES dear author, we already understood Kate is the love of Richard's life, you already told us about it in THREE novels ("this son of York","Royal Mistress" and "A Rose for the crown"), but it's okay, tell us again that he married Anne Neville for reasons of state, although you yourself within your own stories get tangled up justifying that Richard abandoned the love of his life Kate even though he could stay with her but that doesn't matter please continue telling us that Kate is his only love because she is soooo beautiful, and he never forgets her, in fact I think the only conversation that Margaret has with Richard when they meet again after almost 10 years is not about their family problems, health, religion or tragedies, nooooo, it is about Kate , that's how obsessed the author is with her own heroine Kate, in this same situation even to make sense of the absurd, skill is needed and here is not present, George Duke of Clarence loves his wife Isabel but cheats on her and has a bastard while he is married (what is not even accurate), but Richard duke of Gloucester who doesn't love Anne refuses to cheat on her with his beloved Kate just because yeah, I think Richard and Margaret are just as pathetic and stupid in that sense, you know they both love so madly someone with whom I see many opportunities for them to be with, but they deny themselves happiness, why? I don't think even the author knows it, we just have to believe that they are impossible loves because the book says so.
Even if I agree to buy this "love" stories which I don't, they are really mediocre, the author creates characters that are not human, and the idea that a person meets someone in adolescence with whom they fall in love forever is so repetitive and false that it detracts from originality and any intention of making a truthful portrait of a historical figure.
I really wanted to convince myself with this author because she writes about characters that interest me, but I can't bear her obsession with inventing romances, which she also does in a horrible way, although not more horrible than her way of getting stuck alone in the labyrinths that she forms "wanting "respect the facts but sending them to hell at the same time, and her way of telling stories is not brilliant either so I say goodbye tremendously disappointed to have spent my money in her books.
I'm sorry but I can't find a better word to describe this book that really cost me effort to finish, and I did it with the hope that it would improve but it never happened, this is the third book I read by this author and definitely will be the last.
The book tells the life of Margaret of York, Duchess of Burgundy as the wife of Charles the Bold Duke of Burgundy, she was also the sister of Richard III and Edward IV, so she belonged to the York house. The book begins in 1461 with Edward IV winning the throne and Margaret turned into an important princess for being the King's unmarried sister, she has more than 20 years old so she is considered too old to remain single but her brother King Edward has big plans for her, but while that happens Margaret witnesses the important events of the country, especially what has to do with her family, such as Edward's marriage to Elizabeth W. The quarrels between Edward and Warwick, George's betrayals against Edward and all those problems , but apart from politics and wars, Margaret is going to get involved in "love affairs" that her brother the King will be happy to allow, of course he does not care that she develops an affair with Anthony Woodwille, but more than just an affair, Margaret and Anthony love each other but obviously they cannot be together which doesnt prevent them from having romance and passion, in the end Margaret is sent to Burgundy to be the Duchess of Charles for a political arrangement, but this doesn't end her love for Anthony, which neither of them will overcome despite the distance and the very different paths they take, in Burgundy Margaret becomes a stepmother what she will do with duty and love, also a duchess with enough authority due to the absences of her husband, to that we add that in England the York house have issues again and again against Lancaster and even problems between the York family , and Margaret has to mediate between her brothers and even help Edward to regain his throne, but even in such difficult moments she only thinks about Anthony and his luck, when her husband dies she will have to take charge of the situation and defend her stepdaughter, traveling to England what she does joyful because she will see again the love of her life Anthony, and the book ends one or two years before 1483, so this story doesn't even count the personal tragedies Margaret faced such as the death of Edward, Richard III and Mary of Burgundy her stepdaughter.
The only thing that I liked about the book and that earned 1 star is that it has an orderly form, well done narration, without typographical errors (or at least I did not detect any), it presents family trees and the characters establishing their connections, in addition I can't rescue anything else, starting with how boring the book is most of the time, I find it hard to believe that for this novel the participation of Margaret was omitted during the pretense of Perkin Warbeck, her attempts to destroy Henry VII, her opinions or actions regarding what happened in 1483, her position when she saw the mistreatment that Jhoanna of Castile "the mad" (sister of Catherine of Aragon, and the legitimate Queen of what is now Spain) received in the hands of Philippe " the handsome "the son of Mary of Burgundy,to who Margaret loved and raised, that's just to mention a few things she witnessed or participated that this book omits, and instead recounts episodes in Margaret's life that are flat and too boring, leaving aside what makes her an outstanding female character, for example: we read pages and pages of her life in burgundy that the book counts as monotonous and completely empty, Margaret interacts with servants, some relatives and no more, her marriage is an arrangement yes we know but I think that doesn't mean that it was devoid of any emotion, and in this story God! what a boring thing, which is a waste having Charles not in vain nicknamed the Bold, one of the most impressive military geniuses in Europe, a rude, violent, deceitful and conspiratorial man but also cultured, skilled and very very intelligent, I doubt that someone as atypical as was Charles could be the graceless husband who tells the novel, the only lights of the story are those historical moments in which Edward IV, George Clarence, Warwick, Richard III or other characters come to spice up Margaret's life, in other words the plot of the book is bad and therefore is not a good read or entertaining.
I still have a bigger complaint and it is the relationship; Margaret / Anthony, this novel is supposed to be historical fiction so it should respect important historical facts, it is not historical romance where a parallel universe is created with historical characters who do things outside of any historical record, taking that into account I must say that I understand that the authors of historical fiction what this novel attempt to be, can take small licenses is not to my personal taste I prefer that they respect the facts but I still respect and understand small changes, including the creation of slight crushes, or even flirtations that serve to give emotion to the story, I even can enjoy them as long as they are small touches to the story and not the main ingredient of it, as in this case, it is really crazy the way in which the author deviates from the facts to continue insisting that Margaret and Anthony Woodwille were the greatest love in the world, and in this sense Margaret only thinks about him, talks about him, cries for him and laughs for him, even when the life of Margaret's brothers is in danger, she doesn't care that, she just prays for Anthony and sighs over and over again for her "beloved", even being married they blatantly write each other and what it's worse, RIDICULOUS AND STUPIDLY it is Anthony who tells his beloved Margaret the most important events in England (many of which Anthony doesn't have reason to know or to care about), the relationship bothered me overall due to the exaggeration, if you are going to write of a historical figure female that you find boring maybe it is better not to write, I really feel that the author completely forgot the customs of the women of England in the fifteenth century, and forgets the characteristics of the woman in question, I truly think the author instead of studying and understanding her protagonis just wants to make Margaret something unreal, and I don't understand, why women would always have to revolve their lives around sexual passion? And why should the best thing in a woman's life be the love for a forbidden man? That doesn't apply today much less 500 years ago, and her love towards Mary? towards her brothers? towards her mother?, towards God?. Those feelings do not seem enough for the author who puts them aside to focus on what she believes is more interesting and important, and look I don't mean that no one lived impossible or forbidden loves, of course there were and are well documented but it turns out that Margaret was not one of those cases, and what is worse, the author ignores and stops saying that Margaret was regent of a duchy as rich and complex as Burgundy, that she was a mediator and supporter of the York with everything she had, that together with her mother-in-law managed to control Charles's temper so that he was less of a tyrant, Margaret was also responsible for raising her husband's daughter and grandchildren from whom the majority of current European monarchs are descendants, which she did in a virtuous and excellent way, but all that the author throws it away to make us read almost 500 pages of a poorly made romance that DIDN'T EXIST and what is more regrettable is that in her final note the author defends it, and places it not as a creative license but as a HISTORICAL FACT, she says that this relationship "was possible", yes well a billion things were possible which doesn't mean that they happened !!!! Later the author tells us that Anthony and Margaret surely coincided in the court of Edward IV, her as the King's sister, and Anthony as the King's brother-in-law, so they must have fallen in love there. This is a Joke, RIGHT ?? !! For the love of God, hundreds of people were in court at the same time but I assure you that they did it without falling in love with each other just because "they were there", then the author adds that since the two were very pious that characteristic in common must have led them to have an eternal love, here I almost take out my eyes, this defense of this love has the same logic as the plot of the novel, do you have any idea how many people were pious at that time? Clearly the author NO, not to mention that two sooooo pious people wouldn't have incurred in the multiple sins that Margaret and Anthony commit in this novel in order to keep their love story alive including adultery, ah but let's not forget that as they both liked to read that is enough historical evidence of their union, which also apparently in the novel was their biggest connection and their main topic of conversation, dear author I can swear by my soul that they were NOT the only ones who read books otherwise there would not have been hundreds of books !!! I am desperate because the author could have even chosen to explore Margaret's marriage if she wanted so much to add the "romantic relationship" factor but apparently it is better to create an affair from NOTHING, I know there were rumours about Margaret not being virgin, as far as I know those rumors came from France that was trying to stop Margaret's wedding, and perhaps Margaret liked Anthony I don't know I wasn't there but It is logical and obvious to me that Edward IV would have never allow the relationship not considering how important was Margaret and her virginity for his reign, and I found impossible to believe that these two were so obsessed with each other for so many years, I'm sure something like that would have never been out of historical records, and even for fiction as happened to me in A rose for Crown, I couldn't hate more this couple what a bad love story we have here.
Another problem is that the author doesn't know how to handle the situation of the names , she writes about a historical period in which 3 or more people have the same name, she doesn't solve this with nicknames or adding title or surname, at least she doesn't do that constantly so it becomes confusing.
Finally I will only add that if I have to read one more time how in love Richard duke of Gloucester is with Kate (yes another "great" invented love that the author created for her novel "A rose for the crown") I swear that I will go crazy , YES dear author, we already understood Kate is the love of Richard's life, you already told us about it in THREE novels ("this son of York","Royal Mistress" and "A Rose for the crown"), but it's okay, tell us again that he married Anne Neville for reasons of state, although you yourself within your own stories get tangled up justifying that Richard abandoned the love of his life Kate even though he could stay with her but that doesn't matter please continue telling us that Kate is his only love because she is soooo beautiful, and he never forgets her, in fact I think the only conversation that Margaret has with Richard when they meet again after almost 10 years is not about their family problems, health, religion or tragedies, nooooo, it is about Kate , that's how obsessed the author is with her own heroine Kate, in this same situation even to make sense of the absurd, skill is needed and here is not present, George Duke of Clarence loves his wife Isabel but cheats on her and has a bastard while he is married (what is not even accurate), but Richard duke of Gloucester who doesn't love Anne refuses to cheat on her with his beloved Kate just because yeah, I think Richard and Margaret are just as pathetic and stupid in that sense, you know they both love so madly someone with whom I see many opportunities for them to be with, but they deny themselves happiness, why? I don't think even the author knows it, we just have to believe that they are impossible loves because the book says so.
Even if I agree to buy this "love" stories which I don't, they are really mediocre, the author creates characters that are not human, and the idea that a person meets someone in adolescence with whom they fall in love forever is so repetitive and false that it detracts from originality and any intention of making a truthful portrait of a historical figure.
I really wanted to convince myself with this author because she writes about characters that interest me, but I can't bear her obsession with inventing romances, which she also does in a horrible way, although not more horrible than her way of getting stuck alone in the labyrinths that she forms "wanting "respect the facts but sending them to hell at the same time, and her way of telling stories is not brilliant either so I say goodbye tremendously disappointed to have spent my money in her books.
August 27, 2024
I never would have started this book if I'd realized that it ends in 1480, before Margaret of York does anything interesting. Okay, I guess some of the stuff she does while married is vaguely interesting and the stuff right after she becomes a widow isn't the most boring thing I've ever read, but those two things cannot sustain a book of this length. I was so looking forward to seeing how she dealt with Mary's accident and death, the death of Edward IV, the princes in the tower, Richard III taking the throne that didn't belong to him, the rise of Henry VII, but most importantly (to me), her support of Perkin Warbeck! I can't believe all these things aren't in this book, all because the author wanted to milk the time period and wrote another book with someone else as the main character during these events so we don't get to see them from Margaret's POV. I was so looking forward to seeing what Margaret thought of all the crazy things that happen in the '80s and "90s and I'm so disappointed that they weren't included. Without all these cool things, the book just dragged. Margaret is young for a huge percentage of the book and she's quite an annoying teenager, messing around with her little brothers and kissing unsuitable men. I liked the character of Fortunata but I really didn't care for the relationship between Margaret and Anthony. I don't understand why there had to be this added "love story" that probably didn't happen when so many amazing things that actually did happen during Margaret's life were excluded. Was the love story necessary? It kinda made me want to barf. I liked Cecily's book so much. This was such a let down for me.
January 28, 2013
If three Anne Easter Smith books from my library holds list hadn't come in at once, and if I hadn't challenged myself to read 50 books this year, I likely would not have picked up Daughter of York after reading Queen By Right. For starters, Cecily Neville really wasn't queen by right -- and her husband's claim was shaky at best.
But I've been a fan of the House of York since I read about the Wars of the Roses in Sharon Kay Penman's The Sunne in Splendor about 20 years ago. When the Anne Easter Smith books arrived, I decided to read them in order -- first, Queen By Right, the story of Edward IV and Richard III's mother, Cecily. Then Daughter of York, the story of their sister, Margaret of York. The next one is The King's Grace, if I make it through it. As you can see, these women are only mentioned in relationship with their husbands, brothers and sons. I hoped that these books would tell these women's stories better than, say, Phillippa Gregory's latest tripe (The Red Queen, The White Queen, The Kingmaker's Daughter).
Daughter of York was unfortunately written a few years before Queen By Right, though Queen By Right takes place first chronologically. Reading the books in chronological order highlights embarrassing inconsistencies. Early on, Margaret dreams of having a sister -- she has two, they were married off when she was little; late in the book, it says that Margaret's sister-in-law, Elizabeth Woodville, is a large reason Cecily Neville left her son's court -- even though we were there with the characters when Cecily retired to an abbey at the beginning of Edward's reign -- long before Elizabeth Woodville came on the scene. The glossary of medieval terms in the back is great, but why does the text describe a gemshorn as "polished bones" when the glossary and Wikipedia are clear that a genshorn is a horn with holes in it much like recorder? Is a horn a bone? I guess.
The most cringeworthy historical inaccuracy comes when Margaret's mother-in-law, Isabella, apologizes to Margaret of York for being of the house of Lancaster and a direct descendent of John of Gaunt. Margaret's mother, Cecily, was John of Gaunt's granddaughter. Why would Margaret look down on a descendent of John of Gaunt when she was one, too? Pretty much every one who was vying for power in the Wars of the Roses was a descendent of John of Gaunt. Isabelle's lineage was a missed opportunity for the author to explore the complex loyalties these women navigated on a daily basis.
These books are page-turners, and it is clear that the author has put a lot of research in these books. But the made up characters and frequent, embarrassing love scenes make me long for the dignity and accuracy of Anya Seton or Sharon Kay Penman. Anne Easter Smith did once and for all help me figure out exactly what is the difference between a butterfly hennin and a plain one. For that, I am grateful.
But I've been a fan of the House of York since I read about the Wars of the Roses in Sharon Kay Penman's The Sunne in Splendor about 20 years ago. When the Anne Easter Smith books arrived, I decided to read them in order -- first, Queen By Right, the story of Edward IV and Richard III's mother, Cecily. Then Daughter of York, the story of their sister, Margaret of York. The next one is The King's Grace, if I make it through it. As you can see, these women are only mentioned in relationship with their husbands, brothers and sons. I hoped that these books would tell these women's stories better than, say, Phillippa Gregory's latest tripe (The Red Queen, The White Queen, The Kingmaker's Daughter).
Daughter of York was unfortunately written a few years before Queen By Right, though Queen By Right takes place first chronologically. Reading the books in chronological order highlights embarrassing inconsistencies. Early on, Margaret dreams of having a sister -- she has two, they were married off when she was little; late in the book, it says that Margaret's sister-in-law, Elizabeth Woodville, is a large reason Cecily Neville left her son's court -- even though we were there with the characters when Cecily retired to an abbey at the beginning of Edward's reign -- long before Elizabeth Woodville came on the scene. The glossary of medieval terms in the back is great, but why does the text describe a gemshorn as "polished bones" when the glossary and Wikipedia are clear that a genshorn is a horn with holes in it much like recorder? Is a horn a bone? I guess.
The most cringeworthy historical inaccuracy comes when Margaret's mother-in-law, Isabella, apologizes to Margaret of York for being of the house of Lancaster and a direct descendent of John of Gaunt. Margaret's mother, Cecily, was John of Gaunt's granddaughter. Why would Margaret look down on a descendent of John of Gaunt when she was one, too? Pretty much every one who was vying for power in the Wars of the Roses was a descendent of John of Gaunt. Isabelle's lineage was a missed opportunity for the author to explore the complex loyalties these women navigated on a daily basis.
These books are page-turners, and it is clear that the author has put a lot of research in these books. But the made up characters and frequent, embarrassing love scenes make me long for the dignity and accuracy of Anya Seton or Sharon Kay Penman. Anne Easter Smith did once and for all help me figure out exactly what is the difference between a butterfly hennin and a plain one. For that, I am grateful.
August 7, 2009
This is the second book I've read of Anne Easter Smith and I really enjoyed it. This author does a wonderful job of creating strong female characters who sweep you off into their world. The first book, A Rose for the Crown, tells the story of Richard Duke of Gloucester. This book is about his sister, Margaret of York, who is eventually married to Charles, Duke of Burgundy.
This is quite an epic tall about Margaret, but she had a long and interesting life so there was a lot to tell. I found with this book and A Rose for the Crown that the author creates really interesting fictional characters that add so much depth to the story. Fortunata, who is one of Margaret's ladies and is a very small 'little person', she is often found under Margaret's skirts, she is just one of those wonderful characters. Fortunata frequently entertains court with her tricks and she is often predicting Margaret's future. She is a highly entertaining character that you easily find yourself attached to.
Margaret fell in love with Anthony Woodville when she was young. She held this love close to her heart for the duration of her life. Her first husband, the Duke of Burgundy was indifference to Margaret and occasionally became violent with her, he was unable to give her the one thing that she wanted most, a child. Margaret became one of the most powerful and wealthy women of the 15th century. Her brother, Edward the King of England arranged this loveless match even though he himself married for love. A fact that annoyed Margaret immensely.
After reading both of these books I have a much better understanding of the end of the York reign. I have enjoyed them so much that I've ordered the authors most recent book, The King's Grace. I did give this book a 9 and that is because I did find it drag slightly in the second half of the book. But this is only a tiny criticism because on the whole it was a fantastic historical fiction. I will definitely look out for this authors books as soon as they are released in the future.
This is quite an epic tall about Margaret, but she had a long and interesting life so there was a lot to tell. I found with this book and A Rose for the Crown that the author creates really interesting fictional characters that add so much depth to the story. Fortunata, who is one of Margaret's ladies and is a very small 'little person', she is often found under Margaret's skirts, she is just one of those wonderful characters. Fortunata frequently entertains court with her tricks and she is often predicting Margaret's future. She is a highly entertaining character that you easily find yourself attached to.
Margaret fell in love with Anthony Woodville when she was young. She held this love close to her heart for the duration of her life. Her first husband, the Duke of Burgundy was indifference to Margaret and occasionally became violent with her, he was unable to give her the one thing that she wanted most, a child. Margaret became one of the most powerful and wealthy women of the 15th century. Her brother, Edward the King of England arranged this loveless match even though he himself married for love. A fact that annoyed Margaret immensely.
After reading both of these books I have a much better understanding of the end of the York reign. I have enjoyed them so much that I've ordered the authors most recent book, The King's Grace. I did give this book a 9 and that is because I did find it drag slightly in the second half of the book. But this is only a tiny criticism because on the whole it was a fantastic historical fiction. I will definitely look out for this authors books as soon as they are released in the future.
October 24, 2008
If only I had a dollar for every "Certes!" ...
This was my first foray into pre-Tudor England, and it was ... fine. Nice to get some perspective on the Plantagenet's and Margaret herself is a very likable and intriguing figure.
The dynamic of the three York brothers was interesting, although it was a little bit hard for me to connect "Dickon" with Richard III. I suppose I assumed Richard was the product of some terrible and abusive childhood. Isn't this the guy who murdered his little nephews? Then again, George's fate doesn't exactly scream strong familial bond. Apparently you really don't want someone to get medieval on your ass.
I didn't much care for how the book ended. If you're going to make up a romance, at least do it with someone who could have potentially seen it thru. I think this Margaret deserved better.
This was my first foray into pre-Tudor England, and it was ... fine. Nice to get some perspective on the Plantagenet's and Margaret herself is a very likable and intriguing figure.
The dynamic of the three York brothers was interesting, although it was a little bit hard for me to connect "Dickon" with Richard III. I suppose I assumed Richard was the product of some terrible and abusive childhood. Isn't this the guy who murdered his little nephews? Then again, George's fate doesn't exactly scream strong familial bond. Apparently you really don't want someone to get medieval on your ass.
I didn't much care for how the book ended. If you're going to make up a romance, at least do it with someone who could have potentially seen it thru. I think this Margaret deserved better.
January 10, 2016
This is the second novel of Anne Easter Smith that I've read and I'm very much enjoying her style of writing and how she puts you right into the historical time.
I was glad that I'd just read "The Sunne of Splendour" by Sharon Kay Penman as I was able to understand the historical references and also already knew a little about Margaret of York, sister of Edward IV and Richard III. Her life was not easy even if she did live a life of luxury. She was married off to Charles, Duke of Burgandy in her 20's and it wasn't an emotionally or physically fulfilling marriage for Margaret. What I especially liked about this novel is how the author showed Margaret's strength of character and love of family. Considering that she lived during The War of Roses it was amazing that she for the most part was able to navigate the politics of the time and outlive most of her family.
I was glad that I'd just read "The Sunne of Splendour" by Sharon Kay Penman as I was able to understand the historical references and also already knew a little about Margaret of York, sister of Edward IV and Richard III. Her life was not easy even if she did live a life of luxury. She was married off to Charles, Duke of Burgandy in her 20's and it wasn't an emotionally or physically fulfilling marriage for Margaret. What I especially liked about this novel is how the author showed Margaret's strength of character and love of family. Considering that she lived during The War of Roses it was amazing that she for the most part was able to navigate the politics of the time and outlive most of her family.
October 9, 2012
To start I must say that the period writing was well-done, as much as could be from the sources available. Did have issues with tedium.
I grew tired of:
the word, certes,
the servant Fortunata,
the stating of the obvious,
the declarations of how honorable Lord Scales was while he was committing adultery,
the repeated phrase of how proud of the family Margaret was,
the assurance that Margaret was intelligent and had a grasp for politics (which I know from history she was) but Smith gave little evidence of it.
I grew tired of:
the word, certes,
the servant Fortunata,
the stating of the obvious,
the declarations of how honorable Lord Scales was while he was committing adultery,
the repeated phrase of how proud of the family Margaret was,
the assurance that Margaret was intelligent and had a grasp for politics (which I know from history she was) but Smith gave little evidence of it.
October 8, 2023
As someone with great interest in the Wars of the Roses, reading historical fiction about one of the lesser known members of the House of York was a great thing. Anne Easter Smith paints a very human portrait of Margaret of York (the daughter of Richard, Duke of York), and the impact of the various wars between her elder brother Edward IV and Henry VI of England had on her from childhood. Significant references to George of Clarence and Richard of Gloucester add some additional perspectives that I enjoyed.
Where I objected was the speculative relationship between Anthony Woodville, Lord Scales and eventual Second Earl Rivers and Margaret. While it's not entirely implausible that she fell in love with him as a girl, and cherished that affection, it's highly unlikely considering the political climate and lack of viable interactions from the time.
Yes, I know it's historical FICTION, but it still needs to be plausible in my mind. Maybe if Anne Easter Smith had called it alternate history, rather than historical fiction, but the truth is, she took considerable liberty with little to no basis for this whatsoever. Creative, I'll give her that... but again, as one who's made a study of this time period and its major players, the likelihood of this happening is slim and kept me from absolutely loving this book.
Nevertheless, it's well written with plenty of valid historical references and the plot moves right along. I don't regret reading it.
Where I objected was the speculative relationship between Anthony Woodville, Lord Scales and eventual Second Earl Rivers and Margaret. While it's not entirely implausible that she fell in love with him as a girl, and cherished that affection, it's highly unlikely considering the political climate and lack of viable interactions from the time.
Yes, I know it's historical FICTION, but it still needs to be plausible in my mind. Maybe if Anne Easter Smith had called it alternate history, rather than historical fiction, but the truth is, she took considerable liberty with little to no basis for this whatsoever. Creative, I'll give her that... but again, as one who's made a study of this time period and its major players, the likelihood of this happening is slim and kept me from absolutely loving this book.
Nevertheless, it's well written with plenty of valid historical references and the plot moves right along. I don't regret reading it.
December 31, 2009
I wish I could say that I loved this book, but alas, I did not. The plot was very slow, and I slogged through about 2/3's of it before finally skimming the rest of the book and putting it down.
I would not call this book historical fiction (it could very well be that the author never meant it as historical fiction, but that was the shelf where I found it at the bookstore). To me, historical fiction remains based in facts known. If books are about historical people, they remain true to the facts, as known, of the lives of these people. Authors definitely take liberties, especially given the lack of concrete factual information in much of history, or conflicting historical reports (depending on who's side the author of the "history" was on), etc. BUT, and this is a big BUT for me, the liberties taken are in the small details of an historical novel or personage and not in the main premise of the plot. The fact that there is absolutely no evidence of an interest between Margaret and Anthony Woodville took this book down quite a number of notches for me, from historical fiction to a romance novel set in an historical time period, and using a real person as the "hook" to get people to purchase the novel.
Given the fact that much of history is HIS-story, I'm not surprised at the lack of concrete information available on Margaret. This is the case with just about all female historical figures up until the modern day. This book is nothing more than an imagined portrait of a real woman, which is based neither in actual fact nor historical documentation.
I would have found it much easier to accept this book if it was not based on an historical person, but rather a person simply from the author's imagination in all respects, set in an historical time period (as many works of historical fiction are). Because, quite frankly, that is what this book, and this character, are. Why use Margaret as the basis for what is bascially a romance novel, albeit one with an historical set of props? In my opinion, Margaret deserves much better than this.
I would not call this book historical fiction (it could very well be that the author never meant it as historical fiction, but that was the shelf where I found it at the bookstore). To me, historical fiction remains based in facts known. If books are about historical people, they remain true to the facts, as known, of the lives of these people. Authors definitely take liberties, especially given the lack of concrete factual information in much of history, or conflicting historical reports (depending on who's side the author of the "history" was on), etc. BUT, and this is a big BUT for me, the liberties taken are in the small details of an historical novel or personage and not in the main premise of the plot. The fact that there is absolutely no evidence of an interest between Margaret and Anthony Woodville took this book down quite a number of notches for me, from historical fiction to a romance novel set in an historical time period, and using a real person as the "hook" to get people to purchase the novel.
Given the fact that much of history is HIS-story, I'm not surprised at the lack of concrete information available on Margaret. This is the case with just about all female historical figures up until the modern day. This book is nothing more than an imagined portrait of a real woman, which is based neither in actual fact nor historical documentation.
I would have found it much easier to accept this book if it was not based on an historical person, but rather a person simply from the author's imagination in all respects, set in an historical time period (as many works of historical fiction are). Because, quite frankly, that is what this book, and this character, are. Why use Margaret as the basis for what is bascially a romance novel, albeit one with an historical set of props? In my opinion, Margaret deserves much better than this.
August 28, 2014
Margaret of York, sister to King Edward of England, is a pawn in the political game of Europe. At home, the War of the Roses is being fought as Edward tries to establish his claim to the throne. He has married Elizabeth Woodville, much to the chagrin of just about everybody. At age twenty-two, Margaret is still an unmarried princess with suitor after suitor being approached and then rejected as Edward tries to make the best deal for England. Margaret is finally married to Duke Charles of Burgandy, who rules the richest court in Europe. Hoping for love and children, Margaret is horrified by what she finds. To make matters worse, she is in love with a man she can never hope to have.
Although the author takes some leaps with historical facts, overall the book is extremely well-done. As in her first book, the details are rich. Since she actually visited many of the sights in the book, she is able to flesh out the actual settings in the story. I still love that she gives the interesting little details of what life was like during that period--the smells, the perpetual problem with lice and fleas suffered by all social groups, the outrageous fashions of the time. I really enjoy her books and hope many more are to come.
Although the author takes some leaps with historical facts, overall the book is extremely well-done. As in her first book, the details are rich. Since she actually visited many of the sights in the book, she is able to flesh out the actual settings in the story. I still love that she gives the interesting little details of what life was like during that period--the smells, the perpetual problem with lice and fleas suffered by all social groups, the outrageous fashions of the time. I really enjoy her books and hope many more are to come.
May 2, 2014
Anne Easter Smith is fast becoming one of my favorite authors. Her books are hefty in size and I feel perfect in audio format. A Rose for the Crown was a favorite of mine and I was not disappointed with Daughter of York. Staying put in the late 1400's with Edward IV the king of England this book focused on the life of his sister Margaret.
Chocked full of vivid details this book was a wonderful representation of not just the life of Margaret but her mother Cecil and brothers George and Richard also. I loved how overlapping scenes from A Rose for the Crown were depicted in this book also. Married to Charles, Duke of Burgundy Margaret did not have an easy life, but she endured what was required of her.
This book definitely shows that the author knows her history and the staggering amount of research that went into this book, is clearly evident. I like her writing style and feel that it represents the time period perfectly. I love the authors notes at the end, explaining details and any slight changes to enhance this story were explained.
I honestly don't know if there is a set order to her books but I will continue to read (listen) to them.
Chocked full of vivid details this book was a wonderful representation of not just the life of Margaret but her mother Cecil and brothers George and Richard also. I loved how overlapping scenes from A Rose for the Crown were depicted in this book also. Married to Charles, Duke of Burgundy Margaret did not have an easy life, but she endured what was required of her.
This book definitely shows that the author knows her history and the staggering amount of research that went into this book, is clearly evident. I like her writing style and feel that it represents the time period perfectly. I love the authors notes at the end, explaining details and any slight changes to enhance this story were explained.
I honestly don't know if there is a set order to her books but I will continue to read (listen) to them.
October 10, 2011
Having read Queen By Right: A Novel first, I can safely say that I prefer this novel. Margaret's story doesn't drag as much as her mother's, and I was surprised to be drawn into it. However, the simplest thing to do it read Queen By Right: A Novel before Daughter of York: A Novel. Even then, the reader can skip the first 27 pages of DoY, as they are nearly a carbon copy of the last few events that occur in QBR. Margaret's story doesn't truly begin until two years after Edward IV's coronation. I recommend Anne Easter Smith's novels only for anyone well-versed in medieval England, or those wanting to learn more of the era. The average reader would find the length daunting, the people confusing, and the wording far too fancy.
January 31, 2015
This is my first AES title and may be my last. I enjoy historical fiction immensely -- a well-told fact-based story that gives insight into an era and people is a delight. This is just a bodice ripper with a bunch of historical events and people -- as well as colloquialisms for authenticity (?) -- thrown in to spice things up. I don't need to read or hear an author's imagined sexual escapades.
I listened to this on my daily commute and so I couldn't skim it the way I would have had I been reading. And I was thoroughly appalled at the end. I went straight to Google to find out what really happened. Learning at that point that the entire premise of the book (star-crossed lovers) had no basis in fact made me regret the time I had put into listening.
I listened to this on my daily commute and so I couldn't skim it the way I would have had I been reading. And I was thoroughly appalled at the end. I went straight to Google to find out what really happened. Learning at that point that the entire premise of the book (star-crossed lovers) had no basis in fact made me regret the time I had put into listening.
May 16, 2020
This was okay, but highly uneven in the end. It couldn’t quite decide if it was going to be trashy historical fiction with lots of sex, or Srs Bzns biography with lots of politics. Frankly, I thought the “trashy” sections were far more interesting than the political stuff. Once this book gets to Burgundy, it really draaaaaaaaags. I kept reading because I enjoyed the non-political stuff.... but then it ends very suddenly - according to the author’s note, her life just got sad from there, so she wanted to end with a moment of hope. Completely false hope, it turns out, but.... whatever? That was disappointing too.
March 24, 2022
Anne Easter Smith has a wonderful gift with words; the characters spring off the pages as she unfolds the story of Margret, her early life in England, and her marriage and life in Burgundy. A real page-turner; with lots of intrigues, human emotions, and history! You can find full review on my blog: https://poetryofreading.blogspot.com/...
April 25, 2020
I love this author so much it’s the story of Margaret of York the wilful sister of Edward IV Margaret becomes a pawn in European politics and has a marriage arranged then falls in love with Anthony Woodville brother of the Queen
April 2, 2008
I really did enjoy this novel. It was a fun historical romance (which, as you can tell by my book list, is one of my guilty pleasures), not one of the best ever, but still good.
I applaud Anne Easter Smith for not worrying too much about being a stickler for historical accuracy. It felt like she wrote with the knowledge of all the facts, but where facts fell away she didn't feel it wrong to put a bit of imagination in there, aka fiction! In some historical fictions the author worries too much about playing with history and the story starts to fall away and not nearly be as interesting. She added characters where she needed characters (namely Fortunata), and she added the romance which may or may not have been there.
At the end of the novel she made a note saying that Anthony Woodville did exist and that there is the remote possibility that he and Margaret of York could have had a relationship (romantic or otherwise) due to their many shared interests. The ending, she also noted, could blend cleanly into what really did happen in history.
Another thing I enjoyed was the fact that the politics flowed smoothly throughout the book and rarely ever dragged the story down or stopped it completely. An accomplishment in any novel dealing with the old European courts. Of course there are a few moments that drag but they are few and far between. Also, parts of the book didn't feel neccessary to the story at all.
Overall, though, the book was good. A decent historical fiction for those of you who like them. If you're looking for another Philippa Gregory-type novel, this probably isn't on par, but you should really give it a try.
I applaud Anne Easter Smith for not worrying too much about being a stickler for historical accuracy. It felt like she wrote with the knowledge of all the facts, but where facts fell away she didn't feel it wrong to put a bit of imagination in there, aka fiction! In some historical fictions the author worries too much about playing with history and the story starts to fall away and not nearly be as interesting. She added characters where she needed characters (namely Fortunata), and she added the romance which may or may not have been there.
At the end of the novel she made a note saying that Anthony Woodville did exist and that there is the remote possibility that he and Margaret of York could have had a relationship (romantic or otherwise) due to their many shared interests. The ending, she also noted, could blend cleanly into what really did happen in history.
Another thing I enjoyed was the fact that the politics flowed smoothly throughout the book and rarely ever dragged the story down or stopped it completely. An accomplishment in any novel dealing with the old European courts. Of course there are a few moments that drag but they are few and far between. Also, parts of the book didn't feel neccessary to the story at all.
Overall, though, the book was good. A decent historical fiction for those of you who like them. If you're looking for another Philippa Gregory-type novel, this probably isn't on par, but you should really give it a try.
September 18, 2011
I want to give this more of a 3.5. It was a good historical fiction to read, and I enjoy Anne Easter Smith novels, overall. However, so much of the book was just okay. Smith likes to take characters from her other novels and intertwine them (even the fictional ones), so that can be entertaining if you have read her other books. And I like how true to history she keeps (although she did make up the love story that was central to this plot... I can forgive that because it IS a historical fiction and you have to give us the fiction to make it all that more interesting). There is something about her writing in general that I find a little immature. I can't quite think of what it is, but it starts to grate on me by the end of the book. If you're into historical fiction, Anne Easter Smith can be fun to read, so I would recommend her, but if you're looking for something that is really going to teach you something new and make you have to think, this is not the right book.
January 29, 2017
This book was awful which I found surprising. I loved her book Queen by Right. This book is based on conjecture, intuition, and fantasy, NOT history. There's no record of a love affair with Anthony Woodville. And that it was even encouraged by king Edward! There's not even a hint of it. She herself admits that in the Author's Note. I totally get reading a book through the authors perspective, but when an author bases a book on complete fantasy and calls it "historical fiction" I draw the line.
And her writing, which I thoroughly enjoyed in QbR just did not do it for me this time. It's told in third person which I don't mind, but it hops from one person's perspective to another with no warning and then back. Her thoughts, his thoughts, George's thoughts, and back to her. It's very disconnecting, and I don't know, it just feels very erratic.
I didn't even finish it. I got 100 pages in and scanned the rest.
And her writing, which I thoroughly enjoyed in QbR just did not do it for me this time. It's told in third person which I don't mind, but it hops from one person's perspective to another with no warning and then back. Her thoughts, his thoughts, George's thoughts, and back to her. It's very disconnecting, and I don't know, it just feels very erratic.
I didn't even finish it. I got 100 pages in and scanned the rest.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 16, 2019
I sought out an author that could "fill some holes" in the fictional world that Phillipa Gregory dominates - and I find Ms. Smith to be just as good - if not better. Her research is excellent (I am an armchair English historian), her characters are well developed, and it's "more than just romance." It is history, as it was lived, with love and loss.
I give her four stars on this excellent depiction of Margaret of York. - a woman in history I want to now read a good nonfiction book about! Great job, Ms. Smith! I now want to read more on the Dukes of Burgundy as well!
Note: I bought the book on Ebay - where I saved a buck or two.
I give her four stars on this excellent depiction of Margaret of York. - a woman in history I want to now read a good nonfiction book about! Great job, Ms. Smith! I now want to read more on the Dukes of Burgundy as well!
Note: I bought the book on Ebay - where I saved a buck or two.
March 19, 2018
I enjoyed the book as I didn't really know much about Margaret but this truly is historical fiction because I don't believe there was ever anything, at least in what I've read, that ever connected these two together in any fashion. It was an enjoyable and easy read but I only gave it 4 stars because I feel that the ending was rather abrupt. I understood why the author ended it that way (she explains at the end of the book), but I would have rather it had continued and you will see what I mean if you choose to read it. I would recommend the book as I do like Anne Easter Smith.
Read
August 9, 2011This was a really good book. It took me an unusually long time to read but I enjoyed it the whole way. The only thing that really irritated me was the author's insistence on using the word "certes" to try and make her dialog sound authentic. The rest of your dialog is in modern English so cut it out! It made the dialog sound like something from a historical romance novel. Other than that though, really interesting and I enjoyed reading about a figure I knew nothing about previously.
May 28, 2016
I picked up this book mainly due to the subject matter. I have read a few books that take place during the War of the Roses, but little is ever mentioned about Margaret of York, Edward IV's younger sister, except that she was married off to the Duke of Burgundy. This book fleshes out her story in a manner I enjoyed. The only part I did not like was her over the top reaction every time her love's name was mentioned.
July 10, 2019
I really got into this story and appreciated the spotlight put on an often neglected figure in historical fiction-that of Margaret of York, younger sister to King Edward and married to Duke Charles of Burgundy. Her perspective provided a different look at the War of the Roses and Edward's ascendancy to the throne and early reign. Definitely recommended reading for anyone with an interest in this time period.
July 16, 2018
I am big lover of historical fiction and I have never read this author or about Margaret of York. I was more interested in Elizabeth Woodville and her mother. This is great book it has forbidden romances, political intrigue and a great lead character to get behind and learn about. I plan to read more of this author's work. She has gained a new fan.
August 18, 2009
What I had hoped would be an interesting look at a powerful woman in British history turned out to be alternately a trashy romance and a snore of a York-family-tree lesson. Very disappointing -- couldn't finish it.
May 25, 2008
The more I thought about it, the less I liked this book. I think the entire love story was implausible, considering the ending. The last 100 pages were thrown together. I just didn't like it.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 227 reviews