I haven't been all that impressed with Philippa Gregory's books lately: most of her Cousins' War series was pretty boring (a lot of "This exciting event is going on while I sit here and stew over the same things I've been stewing over for the past 300 pages), and Taming of the Queen was just odd. But I was still eager to read Three Sisters, Three Queens - Henry VIII's sisters are fascinating people who don't get a lot of attention, and merging their stories with that of Katherine of Aragon's seemed like a stroke of genius.
So what was this book about? It takes place solely from the POV of Margaret Tudor, Henry VIII's elder sister, as she marries the King of Scotland, goes through births and deaths of friends and family, marries for love, and struggles to keep power in Scotland. One of the most difficult things for me when reading about Margaret Tudor in biographies is keeping track of all the shifting relationships, politics, and power struggles between Scottish lords, and to Philippa Gregory's credit, she actually makes it somewhat manageable and easy to read. I also liked how she interpreted much of Margaret's obsession with wealth as being her only way of being in control, and that she made it clear that a lot of her mentality was due to feelings of inferiority (though I thought it could be done better - more on that in a bit). In the last quarter of the book, as Margaret fights to regain power, she becomes a pretty sympathetic character. It was also nice to read about Mary Tudor, Henry VIII's younger sister, and to return to Katherine of Aragon's story, even if both were much more minor characters than Margaret.
So why 3 stars? The main problem is that I felt like there was a lot of potential for interesting things, but a lot of it was wasted or done poorly. For example, Margaret needing wealth to feel in control? It was basically spelled out for readers in a completely obvious way:
"But God does not succeed in teaching me to disdain worldly show; on the contrary, the death of my mother, coming so soon after the loss of my brother, makes me long for the safety of wealth and my own crown more than ever before. I feel as if everyone I love best has gone from the world and no one can be trusted. The only reliable thing in this world is a throne and a fortune. The only thing I have left is my new title. The only things I trust are my jewel box, the wardrobe for my wedding, and the enormous fortune that will come to me on marriage.... This is something I can count on: this fortune and my crown. Everything else, even my mother’s love, can vanish overnight. I know this now."
Argh... show, don't tell! Don't just *say* Margaret now feels only safe around wealth and leave it, show it! Show her fussing over her jewels and dresses and always wanting to know when her rents are coming in and wanting her goods spread around her to feel happy! This isn't difficult as quite a bit of it is part of the historical record, and Gregory, to her credit, does do some of this. But it's a fine interpretation with some wonky execution.
Another thing is that Gregory tries to show Margaret's inferiority complex, but what this comes out to is 450 pages of Margaret complaining, complaining, complaining - most especially about her precedence and how she doesn't want any of her family members over her, even thought I had the feeling that literally nobody else cared about that except for her. It made for *very* slow reading and makes Margaret come off as petty and unsympathetic. As I say above, it does change eventually, but almost 3/4 of the book is just this and it got very tiring, very fast. Furthermore, around the same point, Margaret attempts to divorce her husband, only for her sisters to go against her. She spends several chapters going, "Betrayal! Betrayed by my fellow sister-queens!" and so on, which would be emotional if we had actually seen the three being friendly for more than a few pages. Instead, I just ended up thinking, "Margaret, you've been whining about them the entire book, what did you expect?"
Which leads me to the next point... I had actually expected this book to have 3 POVs like in The Boleyn Inheritance and The Other Queen. I thought I would be reading the perspectives of Margaret, Mary, and Katherine. Me being disappointed in this is admittedly my fault, but as I read on, I couldn't help feeling that having 2 other POVs would greatly enliven the book. Some of it would be redundant with The Constant Princess, and Gregory would probably end up making Mary a slightly sweeter and less superficial Katherine of Howard, while Katherine remains her usual "Oh Arthur was so wonderful and perfect but now I am stuck with his spoiled childish brother" self, but it would still provide some interesting contrasts. A lot of Three Sisters, Three Queens is Margaret mulling over the motivations of her sister queens - when they oppose her divorce for example, she thinks that Katherine needs to make sure Henry doesn't think divorce is possible and that Mary just wants to stay out of a fight. This is pretty brilliant, I thought! And it does show Margaret's intelligence. But wouldn't it be so much more interesting to see that directly *from* each person's perspective, rather than just have Margaret *telling* it to us?
It might also have facilitated all those parallels Gregory wanted us to see. Why not show us Katherine in penury and then rocketing up to Queen of England, while Margaret is enjoying it as Queen of Scotland and Mary is safe and cossetted at home, and their conflicting feelings over Katherine's ordeal and triumph? Or compare Margaret's reaction to her husband's illegitimate children, to Mary's reaction to Charles Brandon's children from another marriage, to Katherine's reaction to Henry Fitzroy and the Carey children. Why not show us Mary in huge debt to her brother, Katherine's possible commiseration because she had similar experiences, and Margaret's "I've been through worse" reaction? Or show the three sisters in competition as Margaret and Mary jockey to have their sons acknowledged as their brother's heir, and Katherine's reaction. Or (yes, I had a lot of thoughts) contrasting Katherine, Margaret, and Mary's reactions as their husbands, in one way or another, betray them.
And finally, we got to the ending, which I thought was too abrupt and too tacked on. There's this theme of "the men are against us, so as sisters we should stick together", which felt a bit like Gregory had just looked over her summary and thought, "Oops, I need to emphasize the friendship and not just the rivalry aspect of sisterhood, and also quick feminist lesson!" Weirdly, it was *Mary*, not Margaret, who reaches this epiphany - at the end, Margaret's *still* thinking, "You know, I'm actually more successful than my sisters after all." Margaret, honey, have you learned nothing?? It was so sudden an ending that I kept thinking I had missed an epilogue somewhere. In fact an epilogue would have been really good, showing Margaret perhaps reflecting on her two dead sisters (she outlived both Mary and Katherine) and going forward with that whole "women must work together" lesson to meet Mary of Guise (her daughter-in-law with whom it's said she had good relations with). It would also be apt, since Margaret's third husband ends up betraying her as well, which neither the ending nor the author's note really acknowledged.
Other than that, the usual Gregory problems: too much repetition of titles and relationships ("my brother the King of England", "my son the king", and my favorite, "our sister - Katherine, the queen" - Gregory, trust your readers to remember these relationships!) and too many adverbs (on one page I saw "I say flatly", "he says bluntly", and "I say sharply" - I don't think adverbs are the devil but you *can* overuse them). But most of all, this was a book that I thought was all right, but had a whole lot of potential to be better.