Nicholas II and Alexandra were not first cousins..... it's so frustrating when people writing history books don't actually bother to do any research. A simple Google search would have given her the answer. This is only one example of many historical inaccuracies in this book.
I also find it mildly annoying that she tries to make this as gossipy as possible, throwing in a lot of random exclamation marks, and using American slang such as "the old cow", or "flibbertegibbet" when in reference to someone.
I find that particularly offputting. Another thing that I find irritating is that she makes excuses for them, no matter what they did.
And frankly… Many of them were just terrible. The mother of Edward III, Isabella of France, for example, spent money like water, and was a co-conspirator to literally keep her son off the throne, while keeping her lover on it. She had absolutely no problem with Mortimer flaunting himself as the de facto king of England right in front of her son, in public, at grand exhibitions and feasts.
Mary was a wholly inept ruler, frankly, and wouldn't listen to her ministers, or the will of the people.
The author attempts to say that this is not true, then literally within the next paragraph explains that Mary refused to listen to them on foreign policy, as well as in her marriage partner.
That's a nice contradiction that is glossed over, the author doesn't seem to even see the hypocrisy.
Mary was nothing but a spoiled little child in my opinion, she literally threatened that if she had to marry someone of her own realm, (as her ministers were trying to suggest to her), she would refuse to sleep with him, kill herself within three months, and leave the kingdom without a sovereign or an heir, throwing it into Civil War and bloody massacre.
Yeah, that totally sounds like The reasoning of a politically astute and adult woman🙄🤦🏻♀️.
The author then turns the tables on Elizabeth, claiming she was just as bad as Mary in terms of persecution of religious zealots. The difference being, the pope, his priests in England etc. were literally trying to assassinate Elizabeth on a daily basis. The pope even gave to dispensation to any Catholic that would "rid the world of this heretical woman".
As Catholics would hide priests in their homes, it is not unfounded to think that any Catholic family within the realm could very well be harboring an assassin.
On the other hand, she also likes to blame the women for the actions of the men around them. She makes speculations that are completely outlandish, not to mention a bit homophobic. That if "so and so had married so," then the man would not have ever cheated.
Yeah right.
Or "her actions made her husband more homosexual".
Yeah I hate to tell you… But that's really not the way it works.
The author seems to put a lot of motives and thoughts into peoples heads that we have absolutely no evidence for whatsoever.
It is fine to raise speculation, based on legit sources of information. But to simply see women through modern glasses, not to mention the authors own personal (and bigoted) viewpoint, is not only inaccurate, but does a disservice to history.