What do you think?
Rate this book
Royal Marriage Secrets: Consorts & Concubines, Bigamists & Bastards
Were the 'Princes in the Tower' illegitimate? Did Henry VIII really have six wives? How virginal was the 'Virgin Queen'? Was James, Duke of Monmouth the heir to the throne, or just one of Charles II's bastards? Did George IV marry a German princess or a Catholic widow? Was Queen Victoria 'Mrs Brown'? These questions are explored in the context of two broaders love and marriage in the English royal family; the evolution of marriage practice in England. How were royal consorts chosen? Did royal brides use witchcraft? Where did people get married in the past? The answers to such questions provide the fascinating context within which the six disputed royal marriage must be understood.
256 pages, Kindle Edition
First published July 1, 2013
80 people are currently reading
419 people want to read
About the author
John Ashdown-Hill
24 books49 followersLouis John Frederick Ashdown-Hill MBE FSA (5 April 1949 – 18 May 2018), commonly known as John Ashdown-Hill, was an independent historian and author of books on late medieval English history with a focus on the House of York and Richard III of England. Ashdown-Hill died 18 May 2018 of motor neurone disease.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
May 7, 2015
I think I would have enjoyed this book more if it had been written by someone else.
Firstly, he's ridiculously repetitive and seems to have just discovered the exclamation mark! He also enjoys referencing Wikipedia and himself. If you discovered a source of certain information for a previous book or article why not reference that source instead of yourself.
And I had to take everything with a pinch of salt after he made an (unimportant but basic) factual error early on about a subject I do know a bit about. King John was not called "lackland" for losing territory while King, he was given that nickname as a child because his much older brothers had been given all the lands and titles his father had to give before he was born - like I said, not important in the context of this book but so basic that I have to question his knowledge in other areas.
But it was an interesting book that discussed some lesser known royal affairs. Better researched and written I would have enjoyed it more.
Firstly, he's ridiculously repetitive and seems to have just discovered the exclamation mark! He also enjoys referencing Wikipedia and himself. If you discovered a source of certain information for a previous book or article why not reference that source instead of yourself.
And I had to take everything with a pinch of salt after he made an (unimportant but basic) factual error early on about a subject I do know a bit about. King John was not called "lackland" for losing territory while King, he was given that nickname as a child because his much older brothers had been given all the lands and titles his father had to give before he was born - like I said, not important in the context of this book but so basic that I have to question his knowledge in other areas.
But it was an interesting book that discussed some lesser known royal affairs. Better researched and written I would have enjoyed it more.
March 11, 2016
Assez intéressant. John Ashdown-Hill explique de façon très claire et simple l'évolution de la notion de mariage. Ca permet, par exemple, de comprendre beaucoup mieux le cas Edward IV et Eleanor et pourquoi, selon les auteurs, ils sont décrits comme fiancés ou mariés. Le mariage d'Henry VIII et d'Anne Boleyn est très bien expliqué également.
Le seul bémol qui m'a empêché de mettre 4 étoiles, c'est le fait qu'il y a pas mal de répétitions. Après 2-3 chapitres, l'auteur fait de nouveau un résumé de ces derniers.
Le seul bémol qui m'a empêché de mettre 4 étoiles, c'est le fait qu'il y a pas mal de répétitions. Après 2-3 chapitres, l'auteur fait de nouveau un résumé de ces derniers.
October 13, 2019
I'm being generous in giving this three stars, but I've erred on the side of generosity given that - despite my many reservations with the book - I did find large parts of it interesting and he covers ground that others often ignore.
So, provided the historically astute and critically alert reader approaches the book with caution, it is a potentially useful compilation and presentation of alleged and disputed marriages of English (and later British) royals.
What's good? Firstly, he gives at least equal space to discussing the often overlooked episodes of royal marriage history rather than go over the same old stories (Edward IV, Henry VIII etc.) and, even in covering well-trodden ground, often comes up with neglected - and, indeed, frequently over-inventive – theories.
Secondly, he makes at least an attempt to set his discussion of these histories against the contemporary legal and religious views and understanding of what constitutes a marriage, which was constantly evolving over the centuries examined.
What's not so good? Firstly, he makes little if any attempt to explain the social background to changing views of marriage and premarital or extramarital relations (e.g. why, at certain periods, it was perfectly acceptable for a king to have mistresses and why, at other times, it seems it was not; why was it so important for a king to have legitimate heirs).
Secondly, it's difficult to take as a serious historian an author who relies so heavily on secondary or tertiary sources (not only Wikipedia, but countless other websites, or simply quoting from other recently published books) and who, as a previous reviewer has pointed out, peppers his text so liberally with exclamation marks almost every time he says something he thinks is particularly amusing or noteworthy.
Finally, the thing that sticks in the craw the most (apart from some of his somewhat questionable theories and his insistence on referring to certain historical characters by surnames other than those they are most commonly known by) is his glaring partisanship, notably his obvious Jacobitism. He clearly believes a major dynastic injustice was done to the male heirs of James II, and he's entitled to his views, but he completely fails to maintain a neutral tone in anything regarding Catholicism.
Eg. "It is only with the 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688 that the element of bigotry was introduced into the selection of English - or British - royal consorts."
He may well have a point, but it seems out of place in a book such as this, whose purported premise is not to peddle a particular agenda but to provide an overview of disputed and alleged royal marriages over several centuries.
So, provided the historically astute and critically alert reader approaches the book with caution, it is a potentially useful compilation and presentation of alleged and disputed marriages of English (and later British) royals.
What's good? Firstly, he gives at least equal space to discussing the often overlooked episodes of royal marriage history rather than go over the same old stories (Edward IV, Henry VIII etc.) and, even in covering well-trodden ground, often comes up with neglected - and, indeed, frequently over-inventive – theories.
Secondly, he makes at least an attempt to set his discussion of these histories against the contemporary legal and religious views and understanding of what constitutes a marriage, which was constantly evolving over the centuries examined.
What's not so good? Firstly, he makes little if any attempt to explain the social background to changing views of marriage and premarital or extramarital relations (e.g. why, at certain periods, it was perfectly acceptable for a king to have mistresses and why, at other times, it seems it was not; why was it so important for a king to have legitimate heirs).
Secondly, it's difficult to take as a serious historian an author who relies so heavily on secondary or tertiary sources (not only Wikipedia, but countless other websites, or simply quoting from other recently published books) and who, as a previous reviewer has pointed out, peppers his text so liberally with exclamation marks almost every time he says something he thinks is particularly amusing or noteworthy.
Finally, the thing that sticks in the craw the most (apart from some of his somewhat questionable theories and his insistence on referring to certain historical characters by surnames other than those they are most commonly known by) is his glaring partisanship, notably his obvious Jacobitism. He clearly believes a major dynastic injustice was done to the male heirs of James II, and he's entitled to his views, but he completely fails to maintain a neutral tone in anything regarding Catholicism.
Eg. "It is only with the 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688 that the element of bigotry was introduced into the selection of English - or British - royal consorts."
He may well have a point, but it seems out of place in a book such as this, whose purported premise is not to peddle a particular agenda but to provide an overview of disputed and alleged royal marriages over several centuries.
December 16, 2017
Interesting history of the most infamous morganic marriages of the British monarchy. From Henry VIII to Edward IV, and even Queen Victoria, John Ashdown-HIll gives a comprehensive recounting of relationships that rocked the world. Especially interesting was Maria Fitz-Herbert, George IV's Catholic wife. It was fascinating to note how many kings were actually bigamists, marrying where their hearts took them and then making dynastic alliances to please both politics and their families. Forced to ultimately do their duty, Ashdown-Hill proves that many of the royals proved that they could have their cake and eat it too.
November 16, 2015
“Royal Marriage Secrets: Consorts and Concubines, Bigamists and Bastards”
A curious book indeed; arranged and annotated, peering and examining the fruit of adulterers and bigamists; yet written in such a style as for to supply material to feature editors of the less-imaginative newspapers and periodicals.
It’s definitely advantageous for the reader of this book to have an excellent general knowledge of the British monarchy from medieval times to the early twentieth century. Ashdown-Hill kicks off with William the Conqueror’s marriage to Matilda of Flanders in AD 1050; sixteen years before William fought and won the Battle of Hastings (1066 And All That). The Saxon and Danish kings don’t get a look in; presumably for shortage of adequate documentary evidence. Ashdown-Hill writes like a beloved but garrulous old great-uncle; for example when describing Italian C10th and C11th love spells that: “… required the woman seeking love to insert a live fish in her vagina, and retain it there until it was dead. She must then cook it and serve it to her desired lover. During the cooking the addition of other ingredients regarded as aphrodisiac was strongly recommended.”(p.64). Ashdown-Hill does not make it quite clear what similar practices might have taken place in England, the subject of this book; instead using the observation to introduce the subject of witchcraft!
The relationships that King Edward IV pursued are assiduously pursued by the evidence-excavating mole Ashdown-Hill; to a point where I found it very helpful to keep paper & a sharpened pencil to hand. For Edward’s quarry, Eleanor Talbot, there was no written marriage certificate; not that any such requirement existed at that time. Marriage appeared to have been a very lax affair; no need to marry in Church; no need even to marry in front of an ordained priest. The symbolism of wearing of a blue bridal dress was, however, considered a helpful indicator. Indeed, most of this book is concerned with relationships possessing a shortage of reliable primary evidence. Society at that time had not determined, agreed and laid down clear requirements for such proofs. Absolute monarchs in those days survived and reigned through their political and fighting abilities to lead, wield power and defend the kingdom. Might and guile, not necessarily DNA, determined the succession of Kings.
Personally I found Ashdown-Hill’s very energetic style of writing, his stuffing and stitching-in of revelations, riders, and recaps decidedly exhausting to read. I’m ashamed to say that the pace and understanding of my reading faded to a point where, for myself, it became a tactical battle to achieve the end of the main text; let alone to flit through three appendices and a recap on the Notes, and a thirteen page Index. However, with distracting controversies such as http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Ric... a lazier option of watching and listening to Dr Ashdown lecture on the subject of his book would definitely appeal!
Maybe I ought to have read, and followed through on, Dr Ashdown’s bibliography before beginning to read, “Royal Marriage Secrets: …” ? Surely whilst referencing websites correctly is acceptable in an academic argument which will be reviewed, assessed and judged in a timely fashion; is it really appropriate and practical to include web references in a published book that may be expected to have a life of decades or more? On finishing reading “Royal Marriage Secrets: Consorts and Concubines, Bigamists and Bastards”, and writing this review, I turned to the Web; which furnished a welcome review: at http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/9024... which bestows a clarity that my ramblings lack.
A curious book indeed; arranged and annotated, peering and examining the fruit of adulterers and bigamists; yet written in such a style as for to supply material to feature editors of the less-imaginative newspapers and periodicals.
It’s definitely advantageous for the reader of this book to have an excellent general knowledge of the British monarchy from medieval times to the early twentieth century. Ashdown-Hill kicks off with William the Conqueror’s marriage to Matilda of Flanders in AD 1050; sixteen years before William fought and won the Battle of Hastings (1066 And All That). The Saxon and Danish kings don’t get a look in; presumably for shortage of adequate documentary evidence. Ashdown-Hill writes like a beloved but garrulous old great-uncle; for example when describing Italian C10th and C11th love spells that: “… required the woman seeking love to insert a live fish in her vagina, and retain it there until it was dead. She must then cook it and serve it to her desired lover. During the cooking the addition of other ingredients regarded as aphrodisiac was strongly recommended.”(p.64). Ashdown-Hill does not make it quite clear what similar practices might have taken place in England, the subject of this book; instead using the observation to introduce the subject of witchcraft!
The relationships that King Edward IV pursued are assiduously pursued by the evidence-excavating mole Ashdown-Hill; to a point where I found it very helpful to keep paper & a sharpened pencil to hand. For Edward’s quarry, Eleanor Talbot, there was no written marriage certificate; not that any such requirement existed at that time. Marriage appeared to have been a very lax affair; no need to marry in Church; no need even to marry in front of an ordained priest. The symbolism of wearing of a blue bridal dress was, however, considered a helpful indicator. Indeed, most of this book is concerned with relationships possessing a shortage of reliable primary evidence. Society at that time had not determined, agreed and laid down clear requirements for such proofs. Absolute monarchs in those days survived and reigned through their political and fighting abilities to lead, wield power and defend the kingdom. Might and guile, not necessarily DNA, determined the succession of Kings.
Personally I found Ashdown-Hill’s very energetic style of writing, his stuffing and stitching-in of revelations, riders, and recaps decidedly exhausting to read. I’m ashamed to say that the pace and understanding of my reading faded to a point where, for myself, it became a tactical battle to achieve the end of the main text; let alone to flit through three appendices and a recap on the Notes, and a thirteen page Index. However, with distracting controversies such as http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Ric... a lazier option of watching and listening to Dr Ashdown lecture on the subject of his book would definitely appeal!
Maybe I ought to have read, and followed through on, Dr Ashdown’s bibliography before beginning to read, “Royal Marriage Secrets: …” ? Surely whilst referencing websites correctly is acceptable in an academic argument which will be reviewed, assessed and judged in a timely fashion; is it really appropriate and practical to include web references in a published book that may be expected to have a life of decades or more? On finishing reading “Royal Marriage Secrets: Consorts and Concubines, Bigamists and Bastards”, and writing this review, I turned to the Web; which furnished a welcome review: at http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/9024... which bestows a clarity that my ramblings lack.
July 7, 2025
I was interested in how early historical marriages were different in character and the definition of what exactly a marriage was.
I found the style of this book often very dry. It was often difficult to stick with.
I honestly picked this book up hoping for a little royal scandal but found it slightly repetitive and very academic in nature.
I found the style of this book often very dry. It was often difficult to stick with.
I honestly picked this book up hoping for a little royal scandal but found it slightly repetitive and very academic in nature.
October 14, 2019
Good book asked question concerning legitimacy of some marriages but also wrote of gossip that circled some betrothed. Also question other historian' s conclusion quite scathingly.
November 23, 2022
An interesting novel that presents several examples of royal marriages that were questionable in terms of legitimacy.
September 26, 2013
Undoubtedly a fascinating subject. And frankly, I would read anything about the Tudors, such is my obsession. The author's passion for his subject shines through and there are some interesting new (at least in my reading) theories explored. But I just can't take seriously a historian who footnotes Wikipedia. Nor one who uses almost as many exclamation marks as a teenage girl on Twitter.
One huge obstacle for me the author's decision that Henry VIII's marriage to Anne Boleyn was invalid on the basis that Henry had failed to get the necessary papal dispensation to marry Anne, one being required because of his earlier relationship with Anne's sister. The author argued that Henry had sought such a dispensation in the case of Katherine of Aragon, for having been married to his brother, although Henry later decided that the Pope didn't have the authority to waive this impediment anyway and the marriage was conveniently annulled. I found this assertion regarding Anne somewhat illogical. Henry was never married to Mary Boleyn. In fact she was married herself when she was Henry's mistress. Why would Henry have required a papal waiver to marry his mistress' sister? The situation is not at all analogous in my mind. After that, I found the rest of the book hard to read. I kept coming back to that stumbling block in the author's logic.
Overall, an interesting read for monarchists but not, in my admittedly amateur opinion, an especially scholarly take on the subject.
One huge obstacle for me the author's decision that Henry VIII's marriage to Anne Boleyn was invalid on the basis that Henry had failed to get the necessary papal dispensation to marry Anne, one being required because of his earlier relationship with Anne's sister. The author argued that Henry had sought such a dispensation in the case of Katherine of Aragon, for having been married to his brother, although Henry later decided that the Pope didn't have the authority to waive this impediment anyway and the marriage was conveniently annulled. I found this assertion regarding Anne somewhat illogical. Henry was never married to Mary Boleyn. In fact she was married herself when she was Henry's mistress. Why would Henry have required a papal waiver to marry his mistress' sister? The situation is not at all analogous in my mind. After that, I found the rest of the book hard to read. I kept coming back to that stumbling block in the author's logic.
Overall, an interesting read for monarchists but not, in my admittedly amateur opinion, an especially scholarly take on the subject.
Read
July 11, 2015I cannot defend my reading anything more by this author after The Secret Queen. But I am, because I like to have a book available at all times and this suits that need. I don't take it seriously as scholarship and my lip gets to curl at the abundance of exclamation points and at the least (the very least) it reinforces my interest in English royalty. Which, lord knows, could wither without such reinforcement.
"The children of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon had mostly died." Then Miracle Max should have revived them.
Another gem, this one of deduction rather than wording: "Catherine seems to have consistently failed to understand that this question of papal authority to grant a dispensation was the key issue, for she never commented upon it, maintaining throughout her consistent claim that she had married Henry as a virgin bride." That's the only logical conclusion to draw, sure.
"[I]t refers to ‘your Mothere’ – as though Charles and his sister did not share the same mother." Or as though the author was unfamiliar with this wording by neglect of (okay, 150 years later) Jane Austen, in which siblings often say "my" instead of "our" parent. Not evidence.
"The children of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon had mostly died." Then Miracle Max should have revived them.
Another gem, this one of deduction rather than wording: "Catherine seems to have consistently failed to understand that this question of papal authority to grant a dispensation was the key issue, for she never commented upon it, maintaining throughout her consistent claim that she had married Henry as a virgin bride." That's the only logical conclusion to draw, sure.
"[I]t refers to ‘your Mothere’ – as though Charles and his sister did not share the same mother." Or as though the author was unfamiliar with this wording by neglect of (okay, 150 years later) Jane Austen, in which siblings often say "my" instead of "our" parent. Not evidence.
December 30, 2014
If you want me to finish that book try:
- not have two introductory chapters that give the same information with slightly different words
- repeat this information again frequently in the later chapter
- have a chapter 'Summed up so far' that gives the same bloody information again
- not have two introductory chapters that give the same information with slightly different words
- repeat this information again frequently in the later chapter
- have a chapter 'Summed up so far' that gives the same bloody information again
no-thanks
June 28, 2015Not for me.
June 12, 2014
Well researched but dry.
September 7, 2014
Great book with lots of new information for me. Could be very confusing though for readers not familiar with the Royals presented.
June 25, 2015
Well, I'm not sure I have too much nice to say about this book. It had some interesting information I'm just not so sure I agree on the scholarship or veracity of research.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews