What do you think?
Rate this book
Anne Boleyn: 500 Years of Lies
A bold new analysis of one of history’s most misrepresented women. History has lied. Anne Boleyn has been sold to us as a dark figure, a scheming seductress who bewitched Henry VIII into divorcing his queen and his church in an unprecedented display of passion. Quite the tragic love story, right? Wrong. In this electrifying exposé Hayley Nolan explores for the first time the full, uncensored evidence of Anne Boleyn’s life and relationship with Henry VIII, revealing the shocking suppression of a powerful woman. So leave all notions of outdated and romanticised folklore at the door and forget what you think you know about one of the Tudors’ most notorious queens. She may have been silenced for centuries, but this urgent book ensures Anne Boleyn’s voice is being heard now. #TheTruthWillOut
331 pages, Paperback
First published December 1, 2019
2335 people are currently reading
6338 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 578 reviews
November 4, 2019
I’ll be honest – I was dubious about this book before I even cracked it open. Why? Because the title is so sensationalist, clearly designed to be the Tudor history reader’s equivalent of irresistible clickbait. Although the book clearly sets itself against shallow attempts at portraying Anne’s life, such as The Tudors and The Other Boleyn Girl, decrying their convenient cherry-picking of facts and uncritical use of rumour and scandal without bothering to analyse the credibility of such gossip, it seemed to me that this book’s flashy headline is effectively doing the same thing: relying on shock to bring in the audience. But that’s just the title. I can’t dismiss a book on its title. Especially since debut authors have little say over the covers of their books, often forced to give way to the publishing house’s marketing department. I should reserve judgment for the actual content. Maybe it will be alright, I told myself.
Well… it was and it wasn’t. I find that I don’t disagree with the author’s driving motivation. Over the centuries plenty of people have grabbed on to any old nonsense about Anne Boleyn and run with it, or just plain conjured it out of thin air, from Catholic apologist Nicholas Sander writing in the late 16th century and inventing a snaggletooth and witch’s marks, to rather famous novelists in recent years who nevertheless assert in author’s notes their absolute devotion to historical accuracy and accusing Anne of being a murderess and her father of pimping out his daughters. These falsehoods have seeped into the general consciousness to the point where it is not unusual to come across casual comments to the effect that Anne Boleyn was a scheming harpy who deserved everything she got, or practised incest, or was a famous slut, and the commenter knows this because they watched an episode of a fictional drama on television once . And it isn’t just popular media. Non-fiction works written by authoritative historians have been surprisingly fictitious when it comes to imagining the gaps in Anne’s life, seeking to create some sort of satisfying overarching narrative in order to make a good story. Susan Bordo's book points out that the likes of David Starkey in his book Six Wives deliberately couches events in terms designed to rile up the reader and create a gripping dramatic narrative, by using allusions to Greek mythology and hunting. It is definitely long since time that such fairytales were put to rest. And Nolan’s book is in line with recent academic analyses of Anne’s life which note that she left court in hopes of escaping King Henry’s attentions, and that theirs was not a love story but one of a woman pressed into a relationship by a powerful man she couldn’t refuse, a man who ultimately decided to fabricate provably false charges against her and cry crocodile tears about how he’d been bewitched and deceived while ordering her murder.
So, all well and good then, a book worth reading? Well… not exactly. Nolan claims to be writing an “exposé” (her words, not mine), the first ever to treat the sources and their biases critically, and provide an account of Anne’s life as close to the truth as possible. The thing is she isn’t the first. Much of what she writes which is supposedly a revelation is not new information at all to those who have seriously studied Anne’s life, such as the fact that Anne most likely led a modest and pious life in France, or that she was educated by some of the finest minds of the Reformation and held deep and genuine convictions of faith. This is all contained in Eric Ives’ seminal biography, The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn, not to mention other books which in the 21st century have cast more light upon these little-known facts with a view to specifically dispelling popular myths about her and the Boleyn family. This is evident in Nolan’s footnotes – they often refer back to other recent biographies, rather than primary sources, including Lauren Mackay’s Among the Wolves of Court, Elizabeth Norton’s The Anne Boleyn Papers, Tracy Borman’s Thomas Cromwell: The Untold Story, Steven Gunn’s Charles Brandon: Henry VIII’s Closest Friend, Patricia and Rouben Cholakian’s Marguerite de Navarre, Diarmuid MacCullough’s Thomas Cranmer: a Life, Suzannah Lipscomb’s 1536: The Year That Changed Henry VIII, and many more, published within the last 20 years and often taking a more critical, objective view of Anne’s life. Despite highlighting the importance of critically examining the primary sources’ biases at the start of the book, Nolan seems to spend very little time doing just that, instead relying on and rehashing the works of other recent writers and their reappraisals of the evidence. This is why the book feels somewhat disingenuous to me: Nolan’s perspective is not new at all.
The proposition that Henry VIII was a sociopath is interesting. Still not a new suggestion; it has been suspected by historians and readers for years. However, it seems conceivable, given Henry’s childhood traumas and chilling actions as an adult. The problem is that just because it is possible does not mean it is the answer to the mystery of why Henry turned on Anne, why, indeed, he turned on so many friends and romantic partners. At a distance of five hundred years, we cannot definitively diagnose Henry as a sociopath, and there are other reasonable explanations that have been put forward. So while it may be an interesting suggestion, it seems likely that it will never be proved.
The account that Nolan presents of Anne’s life overall is plausible. That is, it is not just in line with the current thinking of other historians’ interpretations, but it is a legitimate interpretation that fits with the evidence. It could even be called convincing; certainly, some of its conclusions fit better than other past interpretations of Anne’s life. But it is basic. By that I mean that Nolan hits up the key points but does not go into a huge amount of detail and depth. This is not a deep dive of the material. The reading of Anne as an educated, religiously driven woman who initially wanted nothing to do with the king’s advances but eventually succumbed to his harassment for the promise of an honest match and the hope of influencing religious reform is a credible conclusion but one that has been laid out far better by other authors such as the ones that Nolan frequently quotes from.
I was surprised however to see how Nolan treats Jane Parker, Anne Boleyn’s sister-in-law. Like many biographies before, she takes the attitude that Jane Parker betrayed the Boleyn family, providing the evidence that got twisted at Anne and George’s trials that the siblings discussed Henry VIII’s virility. And yet this is a rather outdated interpretation. Julia Fox, Jane Parker’s biographer, and Claire Ridgway, have been working to thoroughly dispel this myth in recent years. But Nolan backs up this interpretation with several pieces of supporting evidence: one, that Jane Parker was arrested after taking part in a rowdy demonstration in London in favour of the Princess Mary’s cause, two, that George Wyatt, grandson of Anne’s peer Thomas Wyatt the Elder, in his biography of Anne directly accuses Jane Parker of having provided the above mentioned evidence and thus betraying the Boleyns, three, that Jane’s father Henry Parker, Lord Morley, sat on the jury at George’s trial, and four, Nolan believes that only Jane Parker could have provided the letter from Anne to George informing him that she was pregnant (this was twisted in the trial as proof of incest rather than a simple family announcement). Nolan admits that Jane was initially a supporter of the Boleyns, attempting to help Anne get rid of one of Henry VIII’s mistresses who was a well known supporter of the pro-Imperial faction, but decides that Jane must have turned against her sister-in-law when their efforts to get the lady dismissed by picking a fight with her only resulted in Henry VIII banishing Jane from court instead. Some of this pretty obviously flimsy – George Wyatt wrote decades after Anne’s downfall, late in Elizabeth’s reign or possibly even into the reign of James I, and was not himself a witness to events, it’s clearly not impossible that he picked up hearsay and mistakenly reported it as fact – while other points, such as Jane’s participation in a pro-Mary demonstration, seem pretty damning.
So what do Jane’s biographers have to say about it? Adrienne Dillard notes that there are only three writers who name Jane Parker as a traitor to her husband, but they were all written much later and all seem to have used George Wyatt as their source, meanwhile ambassador Lancelot de Carles (who was a contemporary to events) specifically says that the culprit was an unmarried woman and names the Countess of Worcester, and other contemporary sources do not mention the woman’s name at all. As for the pro-Mary demonstration; “there is no firm proof that she did in fact attend. The dispatch itself says that several of the ladies, “being of higher rank than the rest, had been sent to Tower.” While an accompanying notation from the ambassador merely reads “Note, my Lord Rochford…” This reference is far too vague to assume his meaning. Besides, if Jane had been among the ladies sent to the Tower, it certainly would have been reported.” (Adrienne Dillard, https://queenanneboleyn.com/2017/05/1... ). Julia Fox adds: “to speak out against her husband’s family would have been most uncharacteristic of her. Doubtless she heard about the brouhaha, but she knew her destiny lay with the Boleyns. To jump ship at this stage would have been folly… She was much more likely to have been at court than protesting for what seemed like a lost cause. In any case, if Henry and Anne were lovers again, the future most definitely lay with Anne, and not with Mary.” (Jane Boleyn: The Infamous Lady Rochford, Chapter 20). Fox also argues quite plausibly that Lord Morley could have been reluctantly pressed into jury duty, much as Henry Percy was, and that Jane would have been given little choice but to answer Cromwell’s questions delivered through bullying and intimidation, with any slight incident twisted to create scandalous charges. Besides which, it is extremely difficult to understand why, if Jane Parker were the culprit, she would then write letters of comfort to George Boleyn while he was being held in the Tower and stating that she would try to intercede for him, to which he even replied giving her his thanks. Would George really thank her if she was the “one woman” on whose report he was being condemned? Would Jane bother comforting a husband she wanted to get rid of and was soon to be executed? Hmmm. I think that Nolan has not been as determined as her pursuit of the truth when it comes to Jane Parker as she claims to have been when it comes to Anne Boleyn.
I’m left with the problem of how to rate the book. The myths it seeks to destroy are a laudable enough goal, and the basic picture it presents of Anne’s life is reasonable; certainly, it presents a more accurate picture than some of the aforementioned fictional portrayals of the past. However, despite what Nolan tells us this is not a new perspective, and it relies heavily on pulling together and summarising the recent reinterpretations done by other authors. It also succumbs to its own set of assumptions by relying on previous authors, most notably by condemning Jane Parker without rigorously examining the evidence that she bore false witness. The writing style is chatty and acerbic, and entertaining at times – how could it not be? It will always feel satisfying to point out silly mistakes and laugh at absurd misinterpretations. But that chatty style tells me something more; that the book’s title is no coincidence. This is a book designed to read easily, to come across as funny and gossipy. I can’t decide if this is actually genius, because this is a book, in short, that is intended to appeal to precisely the kind of reader who loves to click on clickbait, read novels and watch series about Anne Boleyn packed with every last juicy rumour. Such a reader may be unlikely to pick up a dry academic tome with the intention of rigorously researching the truth about Anne, but they might just pick this up, and it may just be educative. That said, anyone who is serious about researching Anne Boleyn should rather pick up the books in the bibliography, by Eric Ives, Lauren Mackay, et al., which are much more detailed, well-researched, and reliable.
4 out of 10
Well… it was and it wasn’t. I find that I don’t disagree with the author’s driving motivation. Over the centuries plenty of people have grabbed on to any old nonsense about Anne Boleyn and run with it, or just plain conjured it out of thin air, from Catholic apologist Nicholas Sander writing in the late 16th century and inventing a snaggletooth and witch’s marks, to rather famous novelists in recent years who nevertheless assert in author’s notes their absolute devotion to historical accuracy and accusing Anne of being a murderess and her father of pimping out his daughters. These falsehoods have seeped into the general consciousness to the point where it is not unusual to come across casual comments to the effect that Anne Boleyn was a scheming harpy who deserved everything she got, or practised incest, or was a famous slut, and the commenter knows this because they watched an episode of a fictional drama on television once . And it isn’t just popular media. Non-fiction works written by authoritative historians have been surprisingly fictitious when it comes to imagining the gaps in Anne’s life, seeking to create some sort of satisfying overarching narrative in order to make a good story. Susan Bordo's book points out that the likes of David Starkey in his book Six Wives deliberately couches events in terms designed to rile up the reader and create a gripping dramatic narrative, by using allusions to Greek mythology and hunting. It is definitely long since time that such fairytales were put to rest. And Nolan’s book is in line with recent academic analyses of Anne’s life which note that she left court in hopes of escaping King Henry’s attentions, and that theirs was not a love story but one of a woman pressed into a relationship by a powerful man she couldn’t refuse, a man who ultimately decided to fabricate provably false charges against her and cry crocodile tears about how he’d been bewitched and deceived while ordering her murder.
So, all well and good then, a book worth reading? Well… not exactly. Nolan claims to be writing an “exposé” (her words, not mine), the first ever to treat the sources and their biases critically, and provide an account of Anne’s life as close to the truth as possible. The thing is she isn’t the first. Much of what she writes which is supposedly a revelation is not new information at all to those who have seriously studied Anne’s life, such as the fact that Anne most likely led a modest and pious life in France, or that she was educated by some of the finest minds of the Reformation and held deep and genuine convictions of faith. This is all contained in Eric Ives’ seminal biography, The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn, not to mention other books which in the 21st century have cast more light upon these little-known facts with a view to specifically dispelling popular myths about her and the Boleyn family. This is evident in Nolan’s footnotes – they often refer back to other recent biographies, rather than primary sources, including Lauren Mackay’s Among the Wolves of Court, Elizabeth Norton’s The Anne Boleyn Papers, Tracy Borman’s Thomas Cromwell: The Untold Story, Steven Gunn’s Charles Brandon: Henry VIII’s Closest Friend, Patricia and Rouben Cholakian’s Marguerite de Navarre, Diarmuid MacCullough’s Thomas Cranmer: a Life, Suzannah Lipscomb’s 1536: The Year That Changed Henry VIII, and many more, published within the last 20 years and often taking a more critical, objective view of Anne’s life. Despite highlighting the importance of critically examining the primary sources’ biases at the start of the book, Nolan seems to spend very little time doing just that, instead relying on and rehashing the works of other recent writers and their reappraisals of the evidence. This is why the book feels somewhat disingenuous to me: Nolan’s perspective is not new at all.
The proposition that Henry VIII was a sociopath is interesting. Still not a new suggestion; it has been suspected by historians and readers for years. However, it seems conceivable, given Henry’s childhood traumas and chilling actions as an adult. The problem is that just because it is possible does not mean it is the answer to the mystery of why Henry turned on Anne, why, indeed, he turned on so many friends and romantic partners. At a distance of five hundred years, we cannot definitively diagnose Henry as a sociopath, and there are other reasonable explanations that have been put forward. So while it may be an interesting suggestion, it seems likely that it will never be proved.
The account that Nolan presents of Anne’s life overall is plausible. That is, it is not just in line with the current thinking of other historians’ interpretations, but it is a legitimate interpretation that fits with the evidence. It could even be called convincing; certainly, some of its conclusions fit better than other past interpretations of Anne’s life. But it is basic. By that I mean that Nolan hits up the key points but does not go into a huge amount of detail and depth. This is not a deep dive of the material. The reading of Anne as an educated, religiously driven woman who initially wanted nothing to do with the king’s advances but eventually succumbed to his harassment for the promise of an honest match and the hope of influencing religious reform is a credible conclusion but one that has been laid out far better by other authors such as the ones that Nolan frequently quotes from.
I was surprised however to see how Nolan treats Jane Parker, Anne Boleyn’s sister-in-law. Like many biographies before, she takes the attitude that Jane Parker betrayed the Boleyn family, providing the evidence that got twisted at Anne and George’s trials that the siblings discussed Henry VIII’s virility. And yet this is a rather outdated interpretation. Julia Fox, Jane Parker’s biographer, and Claire Ridgway, have been working to thoroughly dispel this myth in recent years. But Nolan backs up this interpretation with several pieces of supporting evidence: one, that Jane Parker was arrested after taking part in a rowdy demonstration in London in favour of the Princess Mary’s cause, two, that George Wyatt, grandson of Anne’s peer Thomas Wyatt the Elder, in his biography of Anne directly accuses Jane Parker of having provided the above mentioned evidence and thus betraying the Boleyns, three, that Jane’s father Henry Parker, Lord Morley, sat on the jury at George’s trial, and four, Nolan believes that only Jane Parker could have provided the letter from Anne to George informing him that she was pregnant (this was twisted in the trial as proof of incest rather than a simple family announcement). Nolan admits that Jane was initially a supporter of the Boleyns, attempting to help Anne get rid of one of Henry VIII’s mistresses who was a well known supporter of the pro-Imperial faction, but decides that Jane must have turned against her sister-in-law when their efforts to get the lady dismissed by picking a fight with her only resulted in Henry VIII banishing Jane from court instead. Some of this pretty obviously flimsy – George Wyatt wrote decades after Anne’s downfall, late in Elizabeth’s reign or possibly even into the reign of James I, and was not himself a witness to events, it’s clearly not impossible that he picked up hearsay and mistakenly reported it as fact – while other points, such as Jane’s participation in a pro-Mary demonstration, seem pretty damning.
So what do Jane’s biographers have to say about it? Adrienne Dillard notes that there are only three writers who name Jane Parker as a traitor to her husband, but they were all written much later and all seem to have used George Wyatt as their source, meanwhile ambassador Lancelot de Carles (who was a contemporary to events) specifically says that the culprit was an unmarried woman and names the Countess of Worcester, and other contemporary sources do not mention the woman’s name at all. As for the pro-Mary demonstration; “there is no firm proof that she did in fact attend. The dispatch itself says that several of the ladies, “being of higher rank than the rest, had been sent to Tower.” While an accompanying notation from the ambassador merely reads “Note, my Lord Rochford…” This reference is far too vague to assume his meaning. Besides, if Jane had been among the ladies sent to the Tower, it certainly would have been reported.” (Adrienne Dillard, https://queenanneboleyn.com/2017/05/1... ). Julia Fox adds: “to speak out against her husband’s family would have been most uncharacteristic of her. Doubtless she heard about the brouhaha, but she knew her destiny lay with the Boleyns. To jump ship at this stage would have been folly… She was much more likely to have been at court than protesting for what seemed like a lost cause. In any case, if Henry and Anne were lovers again, the future most definitely lay with Anne, and not with Mary.” (Jane Boleyn: The Infamous Lady Rochford, Chapter 20). Fox also argues quite plausibly that Lord Morley could have been reluctantly pressed into jury duty, much as Henry Percy was, and that Jane would have been given little choice but to answer Cromwell’s questions delivered through bullying and intimidation, with any slight incident twisted to create scandalous charges. Besides which, it is extremely difficult to understand why, if Jane Parker were the culprit, she would then write letters of comfort to George Boleyn while he was being held in the Tower and stating that she would try to intercede for him, to which he even replied giving her his thanks. Would George really thank her if she was the “one woman” on whose report he was being condemned? Would Jane bother comforting a husband she wanted to get rid of and was soon to be executed? Hmmm. I think that Nolan has not been as determined as her pursuit of the truth when it comes to Jane Parker as she claims to have been when it comes to Anne Boleyn.
I’m left with the problem of how to rate the book. The myths it seeks to destroy are a laudable enough goal, and the basic picture it presents of Anne’s life is reasonable; certainly, it presents a more accurate picture than some of the aforementioned fictional portrayals of the past. However, despite what Nolan tells us this is not a new perspective, and it relies heavily on pulling together and summarising the recent reinterpretations done by other authors. It also succumbs to its own set of assumptions by relying on previous authors, most notably by condemning Jane Parker without rigorously examining the evidence that she bore false witness. The writing style is chatty and acerbic, and entertaining at times – how could it not be? It will always feel satisfying to point out silly mistakes and laugh at absurd misinterpretations. But that chatty style tells me something more; that the book’s title is no coincidence. This is a book designed to read easily, to come across as funny and gossipy. I can’t decide if this is actually genius, because this is a book, in short, that is intended to appeal to precisely the kind of reader who loves to click on clickbait, read novels and watch series about Anne Boleyn packed with every last juicy rumour. Such a reader may be unlikely to pick up a dry academic tome with the intention of rigorously researching the truth about Anne, but they might just pick this up, and it may just be educative. That said, anyone who is serious about researching Anne Boleyn should rather pick up the books in the bibliography, by Eric Ives, Lauren Mackay, et al., which are much more detailed, well-researched, and reliable.
4 out of 10
November 2, 2019
Nothing new. Clickbait. Anyone who has read any recent biography of Anne will have read these same arguments before. Plus, the whole part of trying to diagnose someone as a sociopath using modern definitions from a distance of 500 years is pretty much irresponsible.
June 22, 2020
Anne Boleyn
500 Years of Lies
By: Hayley Nolan
Narrated by: Hayley Nolan
Boy, history is written by the winners, and Anne didn't have a chance! This book is written with lots of great information and wit. I learned a lot about Anne and Henry the 8th, the time period, a some of Anne's family. I had read some books about her before but they were not like this! They told the same old things that everyone grows up hearing. I am glad to finally hear the good with the bad, the myth from the truth. Very interesting! Great book!
Wonderful narration that enhanced the book!
500 Years of Lies
By: Hayley Nolan
Narrated by: Hayley Nolan
Boy, history is written by the winners, and Anne didn't have a chance! This book is written with lots of great information and wit. I learned a lot about Anne and Henry the 8th, the time period, a some of Anne's family. I had read some books about her before but they were not like this! They told the same old things that everyone grows up hearing. I am glad to finally hear the good with the bad, the myth from the truth. Very interesting! Great book!
Wonderful narration that enhanced the book!
December 3, 2019
Quite honestly, I'm not entirely sure who the author is attempting to "correct." I've been researching the Boleyns and their extended families for over a decade and I can't think of any contemporary historian who still believes the outlandish caricatures of Anne. In fact, Anne's reputation has continuously done nothing but improve thanks to the outstanding research that has come out from exceedingly thorough analysis of the original documents by Ives, Lipscomb, Starkey, Vasoli, Ridgway, MacKay, Grueninger, Morris, De Lisle, Fraser, et al. Additionally, Nolan utterly ignores Julia Fox's work (and plenty of other recent scholarship) on Jane Boleyn, Lady Rochford...repeating unsubstantiated claims, thereby committing the same slander she accuses others of doing to Anne. While I wholeheartedly agree with Nolan that fiction writers have been wildly negligent in their portrayals of the Boleyn family, those only seem to get a passing mention...instead it's the historians who have done excellent work rehabilitating Anne in non-fiction that are the targets of her ire. I just don't understand why. Clearly, I'm missing something. Others have commented on Nolan's writing style, but I didn't mind that at all. That breezy tone can engage people, make them excited about learning, which is never a bad thing. The only trouble is that it can come off condescending, so there is a fine line to walk. I have no doubt there will be plenty of Tudorphiles who love this book, but it just wasn't for me.
November 2, 2019
What rubbish. Very shallow understanding, minimal evidence of substantive research, based on outdated assumptions, questionable analysis of sources. Plenty of better sources out there.
November 13, 2019
If I do no research, misrepresent the work of actual historians, then pretend that I have discovered SEKRITS that have literally been known since the 16th century, can I get a six-figure advance?
November 4, 2019
Five -hundred years of lies? The only lie here is the lie that everyone before Nolan has told lies. There is nothing new and no new evidence that has not been made available for years. Here the only thing worth commenting on is the mind-numbing arrogance of the author. She thanks Eric Ives for inching his way towards helping her towards the truth. She is the only person to provide 'uncensored' truth about Anne Boleyn because everyone before her has deliberately, or through lazy research, has failed to do so. This is not only untrue but is downright insulting to those who have gone before. I agree that the likes of Weir, Gregory and Mantel are a disgrace to history but that does not negate all of the other historians such as Ives, Ridgway, Licence etc etc who have worked tirelessly over decades to do exactly what Nolan says she has done, while she insults them at the same time as creaming off their work.
It is this book which is lazy because there is no original research here. It is this book which tells lies by trying to suggest it goes where no one else has gone before. It is the author who suggest history has lied whilst doing exactly the same as Weir before her. Susan Bordo in her wonderfully book about Anne covered the way Anne has been treated in fiction, and she did it with far more eloquence and intelligence than Nolan managed. Yet Bordo isn't given any credit by Nolan.
Personally, the way Nolan tries to portray Henry VIII as a sociopath and Anne as suffering from post traumatic stress is neither here nor there. They are just theories no more ridiculous than those provide by Weir (Anne in love with Henry Norris, Anne not being able to bond with Elizabeth etc etc) or Warnicke (the deformed foetus, everyone around Anne being homosexual etc etc). To me what makes this book so abhorrent is it's title.
The title makes people want to buy it for completely the wrong reasons. It is falsely inflammatory. It is aimed at those who have never read a proper, historically nuanced, honest, compassionate and well researched biography of Anne's life. In other words it takes advantage of people and it makes the author money while doing so.
This isn't a reversionary history. It is history revamped for the ignorant in an attempt to make as much money as possible.
It is this book which is lazy because there is no original research here. It is this book which tells lies by trying to suggest it goes where no one else has gone before. It is the author who suggest history has lied whilst doing exactly the same as Weir before her. Susan Bordo in her wonderfully book about Anne covered the way Anne has been treated in fiction, and she did it with far more eloquence and intelligence than Nolan managed. Yet Bordo isn't given any credit by Nolan.
Personally, the way Nolan tries to portray Henry VIII as a sociopath and Anne as suffering from post traumatic stress is neither here nor there. They are just theories no more ridiculous than those provide by Weir (Anne in love with Henry Norris, Anne not being able to bond with Elizabeth etc etc) or Warnicke (the deformed foetus, everyone around Anne being homosexual etc etc). To me what makes this book so abhorrent is it's title.
The title makes people want to buy it for completely the wrong reasons. It is falsely inflammatory. It is aimed at those who have never read a proper, historically nuanced, honest, compassionate and well researched biography of Anne's life. In other words it takes advantage of people and it makes the author money while doing so.
This isn't a reversionary history. It is history revamped for the ignorant in an attempt to make as much money as possible.
November 3, 2019
What I don't understand is why this author thinks she's writing something new and has discovered facts no one else has ever heard of. I think it might have been more palatable a book if it hadn't been so full of aggressive attacks on actual historians.
January 5, 2020
This is a lesson to myself to actually read the reviews before I buy a book. In this way I could have saved the amount for something possibly more worthy.
Before I start my rant, let me emphasise that I too believe that the traditional view of Anne Boleyn has not done her much justice, and she needs somebody to bring her back in a better light. But just not Nolan.
Count 1: Lack of Research
Hayley Nolan has a talent: she made anybody else sound more of a historian than she is. According to Nolan's website, she is a "historian". I can almost hear Diarmaid Macculloch laughing, or David Starkey grimacing (a little like him grimacing when 16+ kids failed to appreciate his artefacts in Jamie's Dream School).
Usually, writing a book which involved a lot of research deserves a lot of applause. However, while reading the book it has been repeatedly echoed in my mind why was I not reading The Anne Boleyn Papers instead, or The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn, since so many sources were lifted from that book alone. It also pointed to another issue: Nolan's book has been sold as a "corrective biography" with a brand new analysis of Anne Boleyn. It is not really brand new if she was referencing from somebody else, right? (Tip for you Nolan: if you want to at least sound original, then reference the footnotes from these biographies so that you would be referencing from more primary material, because Eustace Chapuys is not exactly sufficient. Anne's letter found amongst Cromwell's papers was great - and since you have been emphasising on your partnerships on your website, please use those sources, for goodness sake)
If I sound mean, Nolan, in case you are reading this, it is because work of this quality cannot even pass a typical GCSE History marker, let alone for somebody who is trying to be a historian.
Count 2: bias
There is a difference between having a stance and being biased.
Nolan is so biased that she fails being a historian. Sources were either a) overanalysed (due to potential bias and being propaganda to preserve Henry VIII's image), or b) simply quoted because they help her cause, without any scrutiny.
Let us take an example: Anne being a patron to the underprivileged. This part I do not doubt, but then there are parts which deserve a bit more critical thinking and analysis. "Anne would have to read through daily appeals from petitioners". (p. 157) In theory Anne would have to, since she was Queen. But then likewise her cousin and the later fifth queen, Kathryn Howard, which I somehow could not see doing so. Tasks like these can be delegated really easily, especially when the Queen had a large entourage.
Nolan's bias also drove her to make incredible hypotheses. Do not get me wrong, I do not find Jane Seymour a saint either, but then Nolan's comment that Jane listening to life at Court from her family and "was no doubt yearning to experience that life for herself" is a bit of a stretch if not backed up by anything.
There are times when she has not even cited properly. "It's widely acknowledged that Anne's chaplains would often preach controversial messages on her behalf, so by that same reckoning it's valid to presume she would be in support of, or even the instigator behind, some of Cranmer's more contentious appeals." (p. 173) Where is the citation for this? If it is that well-known then Anne would not be suffering from her bad reputation, right? The only universal truth that does not need to be cited is that a single man in possession of a large fortune must be in want of a wife, and even this has been analysed for the centuries afterwards whether it is tinged with mild irony.
Nolan's desperation to paint Anne Boleyn in a good light has gone out of hand, not only from a misuse and abuse of sources. The above quote has led me to my final point: tone.
But prior to moving to the final count, let me point to the last abuse of sources arising from bias: "In fact, he [Chapuys] and Anne had never met in all his years at court." (p. 230)
And yet you cited him almost religiously, despite he was only collecting information from people, who would have had a stance, and given that he was the Spanish ambassador?
Count 3: Tone
It is one thing to be a historical screenwriter. But it does not automatically mean you are a historian. And if you want to attempt to be a historian, do not write a book as you would a screenplay.
Even if the counts above were rectified, the book would still receive the same rating because of its tone: I cannot take Nolan seriously. At points she is so bad she becomes entertaining.
It might be an attempt to engage with the reader, but then one can sound sarcastic without sounding silly.
Further, Nolan's attempt to sound sarcastic makes her sound like an idiot as well. Pardon the strong language. When Henry VIII tried to renew his bond with the Holy Roman Emperor prior to Anne's death, Nolan commented:
Why is she even that surprised, this is still happening to the modern day royal families of Europe. If Nolan paid attention to nearer history, we just commemorated that a century has passed since the First World War, and everybody was related in it. This happens to be one of the worst tricolon I have ever seen used.
Likewise,
Cromwell, firstly, was a lawyer. Secondly, treason and witchcraft were genuine crimes which could have you beheaded back in Tudor England.
Final comment: if Nolan read more widely, she would not employ the hashtag #TheTruthWillOut, since it was lifted from The Merchant of Venice. William Shakespeare's Henry VIII was not exactly harsh to Anne Boleyn since she was the mother of the monarch he was writing under, but her image in the play still wanted some repainting, and still a far cry from the image Nolan desperately wants to paint.
Before I start my rant, let me emphasise that I too believe that the traditional view of Anne Boleyn has not done her much justice, and she needs somebody to bring her back in a better light. But just not Nolan.
Count 1: Lack of Research
Hayley Nolan has a talent: she made anybody else sound more of a historian than she is. According to Nolan's website, she is a "historian". I can almost hear Diarmaid Macculloch laughing, or David Starkey grimacing (a little like him grimacing when 16+ kids failed to appreciate his artefacts in Jamie's Dream School).
Usually, writing a book which involved a lot of research deserves a lot of applause. However, while reading the book it has been repeatedly echoed in my mind why was I not reading The Anne Boleyn Papers instead, or The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn, since so many sources were lifted from that book alone. It also pointed to another issue: Nolan's book has been sold as a "corrective biography" with a brand new analysis of Anne Boleyn. It is not really brand new if she was referencing from somebody else, right? (Tip for you Nolan: if you want to at least sound original, then reference the footnotes from these biographies so that you would be referencing from more primary material, because Eustace Chapuys is not exactly sufficient. Anne's letter found amongst Cromwell's papers was great - and since you have been emphasising on your partnerships on your website, please use those sources, for goodness sake)
If I sound mean, Nolan, in case you are reading this, it is because work of this quality cannot even pass a typical GCSE History marker, let alone for somebody who is trying to be a historian.
Count 2: bias
May I interject as the voice of reason (p. 156)
There is a difference between having a stance and being biased.
Nolan is so biased that she fails being a historian. Sources were either a) overanalysed (due to potential bias and being propaganda to preserve Henry VIII's image), or b) simply quoted because they help her cause, without any scrutiny.
Let us take an example: Anne being a patron to the underprivileged. This part I do not doubt, but then there are parts which deserve a bit more critical thinking and analysis. "Anne would have to read through daily appeals from petitioners". (p. 157) In theory Anne would have to, since she was Queen. But then likewise her cousin and the later fifth queen, Kathryn Howard, which I somehow could not see doing so. Tasks like these can be delegated really easily, especially when the Queen had a large entourage.
Nolan's bias also drove her to make incredible hypotheses. Do not get me wrong, I do not find Jane Seymour a saint either, but then Nolan's comment that Jane listening to life at Court from her family and "was no doubt yearning to experience that life for herself" is a bit of a stretch if not backed up by anything.
There are times when she has not even cited properly. "It's widely acknowledged that Anne's chaplains would often preach controversial messages on her behalf, so by that same reckoning it's valid to presume she would be in support of, or even the instigator behind, some of Cranmer's more contentious appeals." (p. 173) Where is the citation for this? If it is that well-known then Anne would not be suffering from her bad reputation, right? The only universal truth that does not need to be cited is that a single man in possession of a large fortune must be in want of a wife, and even this has been analysed for the centuries afterwards whether it is tinged with mild irony.
Nolan's desperation to paint Anne Boleyn in a good light has gone out of hand, not only from a misuse and abuse of sources. The above quote has led me to my final point: tone.
But prior to moving to the final count, let me point to the last abuse of sources arising from bias: "In fact, he [Chapuys] and Anne had never met in all his years at court." (p. 230)
And yet you cited him almost religiously, despite he was only collecting information from people, who would have had a stance, and given that he was the Spanish ambassador?
Count 3: Tone
It is one thing to be a historical screenwriter. But it does not automatically mean you are a historian. And if you want to attempt to be a historian, do not write a book as you would a screenplay.
Even if the counts above were rectified, the book would still receive the same rating because of its tone: I cannot take Nolan seriously. At points she is so bad she becomes entertaining.
If ever there was a time for the self-delusion that everything was juuuuust fine, that time was now. (p. 164)
It might be an attempt to engage with the reader, but then one can sound sarcastic without sounding silly.
Further, Nolan's attempt to sound sarcastic makes her sound like an idiot as well. Pardon the strong language. When Henry VIII tried to renew his bond with the Holy Roman Emperor prior to Anne's death, Nolan commented:
As in the Holy Roman Emperor. As in Katherine's nephew. As in are you serious? After everything that had happened? But remember, Charles's aunt was now gone, and family loyalty is important and all, but, you know: war! (p. 228)
Why is she even that surprised, this is still happening to the modern day royal families of Europe. If Nolan paid attention to nearer history, we just commemorated that a century has passed since the First World War, and everybody was related in it. This happens to be one of the worst tricolon I have ever seen used.
Likewise,
Yeah, I'm thinking the whole 'creating false evidence to kill six people including the queen of England' was also illegal, so I'm not entirely convinced that working with the confines of the law was Cromwell's main concern. (p. 241)
Cromwell, firstly, was a lawyer. Secondly, treason and witchcraft were genuine crimes which could have you beheaded back in Tudor England.
Final comment: if Nolan read more widely, she would not employ the hashtag #TheTruthWillOut, since it was lifted from The Merchant of Venice. William Shakespeare's Henry VIII was not exactly harsh to Anne Boleyn since she was the mother of the monarch he was writing under, but her image in the play still wanted some repainting, and still a far cry from the image Nolan desperately wants to paint.
December 11, 2019
So, what's all the fuss about? What's new about this book? Quite a lot actually. For a start off the author is a psychologist/psychiatrist. No other biography of Anne Boleyn has been written by such a renowned psychoanalyst who is able to diagnose the mental state of someone who died nearly five-hundred years ago. Remarkable really. She is also able to tell us that Anne Boleyn, in her final days, was suffering with post-traumatic stress disorder. I bet all those World War I veterans would have been far better off if Hayley Nolan had been alive and kicking in 1918.
What else is new and original? Well, we now know that we have been lied to about Anne and her family by every historian who every lived. Hayley doesn't tell us why, which is strange bearing in mind she was able to psychoanalyse Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn. You would think she would have been able to provide a plausible reason why all those other historians needed to deliberately keep the truth from us for all these years. Amy Licence, Eric Ives, Claire Ridgway etc obviously have deep psychological issues to have acted the way they have. Either that or they are completely incompetent to have missed all the evidence which Hayley has single-handedly dug up. Shame on you all!
Hayley explains to us that Anne wasn't a nasty witch, that she did a lot for charity, that she didn't encourage Henry's affections and that she was actively involved in politics and religious reform. Why has no one ever told us this before? Also, apparently Anne was innocent of the crimes alleged against her. Well, I have to say that was a new one on me! Why have we never been adequately told this before by any other historian? I am shocked! Not only has Hayley turned out to be a brilliant psychoanalyst, she's also the greatest Tudor historian who has ever lived.
Other than Hayley no one has stuck up for Anne before. There are so many myths and misconceptions about Anne which Hayley has exploded. I'm so disappointed with Eric Ives. I thought he was a renowned expert on the Reformation........the man knew nothing! He was supposed to have written the definitive biography of Anne Boleyn. How could he have missed out her passion for reform of the Catholic Church? Why? How is it Hayley can read extant sources when no one else has been able to, including the people who translated Letters and Papers of Henry VIII? How did they manage to translate the documents yet not be able to understand them? I now know they couldn't because Hayley told me, but why, why, why? I demand an explanation.
How is it no other historian has convincingly put forward the argument that Anne was innocent? Why has every other biography of Anne avoided the issue? I've learned that Licence, Lipscomb, Bordo etc have a lot to answer for. They even try to convince us that Jane Boleyn wasn't a husband hating shrew who accused Anne and George of incest. Obviously that's nonsense, so much so that Hayley didn't bother mentioning Julia Fox.
There are actually people who criticise lovely Hayley and her ground breaking biography. Frankly I'm shocked! I always think of Hayley as Captain Kirk, going where no historian has ever gone before. Reading her wondrous book was even better than listening to her shout aggressively on Facebook (I must admit to using earplugs when listening to her to avoid burst eardrums). Her passion when insulting her fellow history writers is truly brilliant. No one has ever insulted so many people in such a short book before this. It's a real art to insult someone AND copy their work at the same time. I can safely say that too is new as I've never come across it before.
What I find even greater than the book itself is the incredible PR surrounding it. I can't think of any other historical biography which has been subject to the amazing hype that this one has been. Hayley's PR team are geniuses (I wonder if they've read the book)?
So what's next? I think I see a Nobel peace/literature prize on the way; perhaps both!
So why have I only given it one star I hear you ask? Probably because I don't like been taken for a ride.
What else is new and original? Well, we now know that we have been lied to about Anne and her family by every historian who every lived. Hayley doesn't tell us why, which is strange bearing in mind she was able to psychoanalyse Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn. You would think she would have been able to provide a plausible reason why all those other historians needed to deliberately keep the truth from us for all these years. Amy Licence, Eric Ives, Claire Ridgway etc obviously have deep psychological issues to have acted the way they have. Either that or they are completely incompetent to have missed all the evidence which Hayley has single-handedly dug up. Shame on you all!
Hayley explains to us that Anne wasn't a nasty witch, that she did a lot for charity, that she didn't encourage Henry's affections and that she was actively involved in politics and religious reform. Why has no one ever told us this before? Also, apparently Anne was innocent of the crimes alleged against her. Well, I have to say that was a new one on me! Why have we never been adequately told this before by any other historian? I am shocked! Not only has Hayley turned out to be a brilliant psychoanalyst, she's also the greatest Tudor historian who has ever lived.
Other than Hayley no one has stuck up for Anne before. There are so many myths and misconceptions about Anne which Hayley has exploded. I'm so disappointed with Eric Ives. I thought he was a renowned expert on the Reformation........the man knew nothing! He was supposed to have written the definitive biography of Anne Boleyn. How could he have missed out her passion for reform of the Catholic Church? Why? How is it Hayley can read extant sources when no one else has been able to, including the people who translated Letters and Papers of Henry VIII? How did they manage to translate the documents yet not be able to understand them? I now know they couldn't because Hayley told me, but why, why, why? I demand an explanation.
How is it no other historian has convincingly put forward the argument that Anne was innocent? Why has every other biography of Anne avoided the issue? I've learned that Licence, Lipscomb, Bordo etc have a lot to answer for. They even try to convince us that Jane Boleyn wasn't a husband hating shrew who accused Anne and George of incest. Obviously that's nonsense, so much so that Hayley didn't bother mentioning Julia Fox.
There are actually people who criticise lovely Hayley and her ground breaking biography. Frankly I'm shocked! I always think of Hayley as Captain Kirk, going where no historian has ever gone before. Reading her wondrous book was even better than listening to her shout aggressively on Facebook (I must admit to using earplugs when listening to her to avoid burst eardrums). Her passion when insulting her fellow history writers is truly brilliant. No one has ever insulted so many people in such a short book before this. It's a real art to insult someone AND copy their work at the same time. I can safely say that too is new as I've never come across it before.
What I find even greater than the book itself is the incredible PR surrounding it. I can't think of any other historical biography which has been subject to the amazing hype that this one has been. Hayley's PR team are geniuses (I wonder if they've read the book)?
So what's next? I think I see a Nobel peace/literature prize on the way; perhaps both!
So why have I only given it one star I hear you ask? Probably because I don't like been taken for a ride.
November 15, 2019
The average Goodreads rating does not lie here. I so desperately wanted it to, but the simple truth is that despite the clickbait title, there is literally nothing new or original here. It's a simple and not especially well written biography of Anne Boleyn, during which the author fights an army of straw men who apparently espouse the, by now, commonly discarded idea that Anne Boleyn was a one dimensional sexpot. Oh, and she entirely ignores Julia Fox's work in favour of slagging off Jane Boleyn a bit more too.
August 24, 2020
History has lied.
Anne Boleyn has been sold to us as a dark figure, a scheming seductress who bewitched Henry VIII into divorcing his queen and his church in an unprecedented display of passion. Quite the tragic love story, right?
Wrong.
In this electrifying exposé, Hayley Nolan explores for the first time the full, uncensored evidence of Anne Boleyn’s life and relationship with Henry VIII, revealing the shocking suppression of a powerful woman.
So leave all notions of outdated and romanticised folklore at the door and forget what you think you know about one of the Tudors’ most notorious queens. She may have been silenced for centuries, but this urgent book ensures Anne Boleyn’s voice is being heard now.
#TheTruthWillOut
The book is written as you'd expect from a biography - is written in 3rd person. The book is broken down into 13 chapters, which average about 20 pages each. The book is written in a very up to date manner and things are explained very well. I think anyone with just a passing interest in history and Anne's story should be able to get on well with this book.
I enjoyed this book. I didn't know that much about Anne Boleyn and her history, so it was interesting seeing a different side to her than is often shown in other books and most media representations of her. The author goes right back to Anne's childhood and those whose influenced her. We explore her time in France and her eventually coming back to England her meeting the king and everything that happens afterwards.
The author gives us a lot of information about the religious and political problems of age and i think she explained the position and power of many of the people involved in Anne's life very well. There were also some interesting points made as to the motivations of both King Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn.
The only thing that I didn't like was how biased she was towards Anne, I know it's a book about her and arguing her truth. But I felt that Anne was painted as a someone who could do no wrong whatsoever. She in no way deserved what happened to her; even before reading this book, I knew that we couldn't know the whole truth of what actually happened and that she was beheaded on some trumpeted up charges. But I felt the flaws in Anne's character were brushed over, the author does mention them, but that's it. Which didn't make me feel as connected to Anne as much as I would have liked to.
But, that being said I did really enjoy this book and I do feel as though I have a clearer idea of what actually happened to Anne, why she died the way she did and why she was so vilified after her death.
Anne Boleyn has been sold to us as a dark figure, a scheming seductress who bewitched Henry VIII into divorcing his queen and his church in an unprecedented display of passion. Quite the tragic love story, right?
Wrong.
In this electrifying exposé, Hayley Nolan explores for the first time the full, uncensored evidence of Anne Boleyn’s life and relationship with Henry VIII, revealing the shocking suppression of a powerful woman.
So leave all notions of outdated and romanticised folklore at the door and forget what you think you know about one of the Tudors’ most notorious queens. She may have been silenced for centuries, but this urgent book ensures Anne Boleyn’s voice is being heard now.
#TheTruthWillOut
The book is written as you'd expect from a biography - is written in 3rd person. The book is broken down into 13 chapters, which average about 20 pages each. The book is written in a very up to date manner and things are explained very well. I think anyone with just a passing interest in history and Anne's story should be able to get on well with this book.
I enjoyed this book. I didn't know that much about Anne Boleyn and her history, so it was interesting seeing a different side to her than is often shown in other books and most media representations of her. The author goes right back to Anne's childhood and those whose influenced her. We explore her time in France and her eventually coming back to England her meeting the king and everything that happens afterwards.
The author gives us a lot of information about the religious and political problems of age and i think she explained the position and power of many of the people involved in Anne's life very well. There were also some interesting points made as to the motivations of both King Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn.
The only thing that I didn't like was how biased she was towards Anne, I know it's a book about her and arguing her truth. But I felt that Anne was painted as a someone who could do no wrong whatsoever. She in no way deserved what happened to her; even before reading this book, I knew that we couldn't know the whole truth of what actually happened and that she was beheaded on some trumpeted up charges. But I felt the flaws in Anne's character were brushed over, the author does mention them, but that's it. Which didn't make me feel as connected to Anne as much as I would have liked to.
But, that being said I did really enjoy this book and I do feel as though I have a clearer idea of what actually happened to Anne, why she died the way she did and why she was so vilified after her death.
November 19, 2019
When it was announced that Ms Nolan was writing a correctional biography on Anne Boleyn, I, along with others was intrigued by the tag lines “500 years of lies” and “the truth revealed”
I expected that she would announce the discovery of documents that would exonerate King Henry VIII’s wife - evidence that other notable historians had missed.
Like her controversial video promo (which was taken down after outraged readers condemned her book page burning of pages from a well known writer) the whole book falls flat.
It is just a rehashing of evidence already in the public domain and the tone of the language used is childish in places.
Save your money and purchase a book on Anne Boleyn that is written by someone who knows what they’re on about.
I expected that she would announce the discovery of documents that would exonerate King Henry VIII’s wife - evidence that other notable historians had missed.
Like her controversial video promo (which was taken down after outraged readers condemned her book page burning of pages from a well known writer) the whole book falls flat.
It is just a rehashing of evidence already in the public domain and the tone of the language used is childish in places.
Save your money and purchase a book on Anne Boleyn that is written by someone who knows what they’re on about.
February 18, 2020
Omg,what can I say about this?I think I only gave it a three star rating because I consider any new theories or analysis that come out about Anne is a win in her favor.Bringing positive attention to a much maligned and wronged woman.The more people that become drawn to her story the better chance we have of figuring out how things went so horribly wrong.I felt though with this the author tended to lean too much on coming to her own conclusions a bit much for my taste.However,I did enjoy the writing and the author's passion for her subject.I would caution any first time readers of Anne's story and recommend something less controversial .
November 4, 2019
Extremely disappointing, for a book that claims to renew and rediscover Anne Boleyn, there is actually nothing new about her. The information is the same you could find in other, more compelling and more professional works, e.g. Eric Ives, and Nolan’s twisting and dismissal of other historians’ works is immature, inaccurate and bordering on outright insulting. Very underwhelming.
November 6, 2019
I did not get very far into this book as I found the style of writing to be shallow and flippant and too irritating to bother with. Maybe if I had read long enough I would have found something new, but there are many better, well researched biographies out there.
September 13, 2022
I must write a review about this book except it was so NOT that I'm not sure where to begin. Firstly just because you wrote the book doesn't necessarily mean you should also be its narrator. God that woman just terrible terrible
November 13, 2019
Where to begin?
I could maybe start with the overly confident (verging on cocky) writing style that reads like a self important know it all who thinks they alone know the true history of Anne Boleyn.
Actually I will start with the writing style. Listen, i'm no expert, I've never written a book but I understand the huge amount of work that goes into it. I appreciate that to write a nonfiction book it takes time and precision and ideally a writing style that is accessible to all readers, whether it is the self confessed Tudor fans or just those vaguely interested in why Henry VIII would change religion in England, seemingly for a woman he would just execute in a few years. However... I cannot get on board with Nolan's style. It comes across as one very long and one very sarcastic blog post (and I admit, I do write with a sarcastic tone myself, but no one has yet to pay me for my writing) that borders on unprofessional. Actually that's unfair, it isn't professional at all. To the inclusion of hashtags, emoji references, phrases like bants and the incredibly callous way she mentions other historians. She shows a complete disdain for historians, to the point that it comes across that she considers them all misogynistic sympathisers. I suppose this is just a personal preference. I don't want dry text, like the ones at school that probably turned alot of pupils into history haters, but I do think there needs to be a level of care and formality when writing about a woman who was executed by the man she loves. This is particularly confusing considering Nolan's point is to show how history has treated Boleyn badly.
Next up; facts. I can't complain too much about the actual information throughout. I didn't learn anything new, but it does once again beg the question as to why Nolan considers this the one true book to showcase Anne as she was, and not how Tudor propaganda wants her to be seen? I will only briefly mention again that according to some threads I read by historians on twitter that it is claimed that Nolan stole research from other historians.
Now one thing I will mention is Nolan's claim that Henry was a sociopath. Not a new claim but one I do find interesting. What I don't endorse is the way Nolan uses her opinions then once shes dropped this claim she uses it as fact throughout the rest of the book. We cannot diagnose someone successfully from the 16th century with a mental illness. It just can't be done. So it's fine to show this as an opinion, you should not then state it as fact. Especially as the "evidence" Nolan uses does not quite match up to what is known about him.
There isn't much more I can really say, it's a short book. It does not offer any new information about Anne and isn't one I can recommend. Whilst it is an easy read, it was a frustrating one.
I could maybe start with the overly confident (verging on cocky) writing style that reads like a self important know it all who thinks they alone know the true history of Anne Boleyn.
Actually I will start with the writing style. Listen, i'm no expert, I've never written a book but I understand the huge amount of work that goes into it. I appreciate that to write a nonfiction book it takes time and precision and ideally a writing style that is accessible to all readers, whether it is the self confessed Tudor fans or just those vaguely interested in why Henry VIII would change religion in England, seemingly for a woman he would just execute in a few years. However... I cannot get on board with Nolan's style. It comes across as one very long and one very sarcastic blog post (and I admit, I do write with a sarcastic tone myself, but no one has yet to pay me for my writing) that borders on unprofessional. Actually that's unfair, it isn't professional at all. To the inclusion of hashtags, emoji references, phrases like bants and the incredibly callous way she mentions other historians. She shows a complete disdain for historians, to the point that it comes across that she considers them all misogynistic sympathisers. I suppose this is just a personal preference. I don't want dry text, like the ones at school that probably turned alot of pupils into history haters, but I do think there needs to be a level of care and formality when writing about a woman who was executed by the man she loves. This is particularly confusing considering Nolan's point is to show how history has treated Boleyn badly.
Next up; facts. I can't complain too much about the actual information throughout. I didn't learn anything new, but it does once again beg the question as to why Nolan considers this the one true book to showcase Anne as she was, and not how Tudor propaganda wants her to be seen? I will only briefly mention again that according to some threads I read by historians on twitter that it is claimed that Nolan stole research from other historians.
Now one thing I will mention is Nolan's claim that Henry was a sociopath. Not a new claim but one I do find interesting. What I don't endorse is the way Nolan uses her opinions then once shes dropped this claim she uses it as fact throughout the rest of the book. We cannot diagnose someone successfully from the 16th century with a mental illness. It just can't be done. So it's fine to show this as an opinion, you should not then state it as fact. Especially as the "evidence" Nolan uses does not quite match up to what is known about him.
There isn't much more I can really say, it's a short book. It does not offer any new information about Anne and isn't one I can recommend. Whilst it is an easy read, it was a frustrating one.
May 19, 2020
Reading for Medievalathon.
Review to come.
Book Beginnings: Anne Boleyn: 500 Years of Lies by Hayley Nolan
Review to come.
Book Beginnings: Anne Boleyn: 500 Years of Lies by Hayley Nolan
This is not a love story. I hate to be the one to break the news, but epic love stories don't end with one partner decapitating the other.
January 3, 2025
I am not a Tudor or British monarchy scholar. I have read a coupla books about them/the time period, but I'll be the first to admit that it just doesn't stick around. I don't know why.
But this one, I think, is different. Aside from the fact that the author read the audiobook herself, and her tone was OH SO SCATHING sometimes (Here for it!), I think that the objective of this book spoke to me a lot more than anything else that I've read about the period.
For one thing, Nolan brought all the receipts and fully provided all of the source material for her claims, as well as contextual relevance and logic, and did it all within the narrative she was weaving together. She wasn't just trying to give a list of events and dates and names, she was trying to show that these aren't just historical figures... they were actually real, sometimes flawed, people. She aimed to give Anne Boleyn her voice and dignity and actual legacy and personhood back. And I liked it quite a lot.
I highly recommend this. Informative, interesting, feminist, and mostly, just real.
But this one, I think, is different. Aside from the fact that the author read the audiobook herself, and her tone was OH SO SCATHING sometimes (Here for it!), I think that the objective of this book spoke to me a lot more than anything else that I've read about the period.
For one thing, Nolan brought all the receipts and fully provided all of the source material for her claims, as well as contextual relevance and logic, and did it all within the narrative she was weaving together. She wasn't just trying to give a list of events and dates and names, she was trying to show that these aren't just historical figures... they were actually real, sometimes flawed, people. She aimed to give Anne Boleyn her voice and dignity and actual legacy and personhood back. And I liked it quite a lot.
I highly recommend this. Informative, interesting, feminist, and mostly, just real.
March 22, 2021
Nolan has written a book which it seems no respectable history publisher would touch and the reasons for this are clear. I consider this book to be deeply problematic. Nolan derides the work of historians (often without referencing to whose work she is referring and only stating that "some historians..." or "history tells us"), claiming that none have ever written an impartial account of Anne's life (fair, it is impossible to be completely unbiased in any work) but that she, a woman who has never studied history (or psychology for that matter), is thankfully here with a neutral biography which also reveals all of the lies that historians have written over the years. Of course, as she concludes the introduction, #TheTruthWillOut. She writes this most biased of accounts with the ridiculous notion that she has revolutionised how to read source material whilst also managing to decontextualise events so wonderfully effectively that their Tudor setting becomes frankly irrelevant- perhaps to signal that Anne is more akin to the modern woman as Nolan likes to comment. Now I am not denying that Anne Boleyn is more than her traditional stereotype of the seductress. I truly believe in writing a biography that encompasses the complexity of her character and actions within the Tudor court and in her relationship with Henry VIII. The content is not fully the problem here. I would argue that it mainly seems as though Nolan watched The Tudors and thought that that was supposed to be a true depiction of Anne's life, rather than what it is - a period drama. We work in public history with rewriting persistent stereotypes to try to expand our collective historical narrative and I believe that each of Henry's wives deserves thorough attention but not by non-academics, disregarding the work of so many before them, whilst also referring to oneself as a historian. It is unfair and dangerous as people will believe that Nolan's work is without issue - it's the written word is it not? She is revealing the truth because she's been the first to be bothered to look is she not? A truly significant problem is that, if I wasn't so perturbed by the way in which she was framing the narrative, it is a distinctly read-able book with its own voice and great pacing. But the forcefulness of the book arguably is what has made me even more frustrated and concerned. Its read-able nature only adds to the worrying packaging of a book which is limited in so many ways - particularly in the way in which it actually properly explains history, in all of its many different interpretations, because we will never know the "truth" as Nolan so insists that she is telling. It simply isn't possible. We can never know anything for sure in history. Everything is an opinion shaped by our own perceptions and history and frankly the fact that Nolan seems to completely miss this is a testament to the fact that we have a current problem with articles offering "the truth behind [insert recent period drama]" or The Crown YouTube videos which equally provide "the true story of...". I would love to know her methodology writing this book and I imagine it would explain a lot. Until that point, this book needs to be taken with a pinch of salt, with an awareness of who Nolan is as a writer and that the full truth will never, and can never, be out. This is simply her opinion based on research which ironically draws significantly on the work of others.
December 1, 2019
I got as far as page 16 and skimmed the rest. The premise of the book is interesting but Nolan’s passion to prove Anne Boleyn’s innocence got the better of her. In the intro she declares her impartiality but the language is loaded to prove her case.
There is also a lack of objectivity in Nolan’s chapter headings:
Chapter 3: Love of a king and a sociopath
Chapter 7: The wicked queen (who only did good)
Chapter 9: Anne Boleyn: the human being
At the back of the book Nolan does list her sources, and this could have been a better book if it provided better historical context and did not make its case using modern sensibilities to show how badly Anne Boleyn was treated.
I can appreciate Nolan’s drive but I felt it was an oversight to not show how Tudor women were treated by society and how it impacted men’s view of them. In decades to come Anne Boleyn would not be the only women to be sacrificed by a family’s ambitious drive to climb up the social letter. Later, both the Howard family and the Grey family will be the cause of their respective daughters’ fates. The lives of Catherine of Howard, the fifth wife of Henry VIII, and Lady Jane Grey, a kind of distant cousin to Henry VIII, are just more examples of the little rights women had and how their primary function was to have children. There’s more than what is illustrated in this book to the story of Anne Boleyn.
However, in reading this, like Mantel’s Bring Up the Bodies it made me realise how right now where the line that sits between fact and fiction sits is important to me. Maybe one this will change but until then my preference is to read books that are clear about this.
There is also a lack of objectivity in Nolan’s chapter headings:
Chapter 3: Love of a king and a sociopath
Chapter 7: The wicked queen (who only did good)
Chapter 9: Anne Boleyn: the human being
At the back of the book Nolan does list her sources, and this could have been a better book if it provided better historical context and did not make its case using modern sensibilities to show how badly Anne Boleyn was treated.
I can appreciate Nolan’s drive but I felt it was an oversight to not show how Tudor women were treated by society and how it impacted men’s view of them. In decades to come Anne Boleyn would not be the only women to be sacrificed by a family’s ambitious drive to climb up the social letter. Later, both the Howard family and the Grey family will be the cause of their respective daughters’ fates. The lives of Catherine of Howard, the fifth wife of Henry VIII, and Lady Jane Grey, a kind of distant cousin to Henry VIII, are just more examples of the little rights women had and how their primary function was to have children. There’s more than what is illustrated in this book to the story of Anne Boleyn.
However, in reading this, like Mantel’s Bring Up the Bodies it made me realise how right now where the line that sits between fact and fiction sits is important to me. Maybe one this will change but until then my preference is to read books that are clear about this.
December 8, 2019
So, here’s the thing about this book. Reviews have been so all over the place, and I decided to keep my preorder of this to make my own call. I’m a pretty avid Tudor history lover, so I was very curious if there was truly anything “new”.
After finishing, I’ll give it that it is an interesting take. It certainly wasn’t a dry biography, and there were things I enjoyed Nolan’s viewpoint on. It did read a LOT like a tabloid write up, but for some, that might make it a more fun biography.
I’d say, if it sounds interesting, get it from your local library if you like diving in to Anne’s story, but know at least the broad strokes going in. I wouldn’t suggest this as a first soirée into Anne Boleyn, but that’s just me.
After finishing, I’ll give it that it is an interesting take. It certainly wasn’t a dry biography, and there were things I enjoyed Nolan’s viewpoint on. It did read a LOT like a tabloid write up, but for some, that might make it a more fun biography.
I’d say, if it sounds interesting, get it from your local library if you like diving in to Anne’s story, but know at least the broad strokes going in. I wouldn’t suggest this as a first soirée into Anne Boleyn, but that’s just me.
November 15, 2019
What a fabulous book from Hayley Nolan.
It completely changed my perception of this lady.
I'm not one for reading fact history books as I find them very intense but this book was perfect, it was insightful and exciting to carry on reading.
The common sense arguments in this book are intriguing and it makes you regard Anne Boleyn as a human before anything else.
Well done Hayley, this is a wonderful book and I really enjoyed it.
It completely changed my perception of this lady.
I'm not one for reading fact history books as I find them very intense but this book was perfect, it was insightful and exciting to carry on reading.
The common sense arguments in this book are intriguing and it makes you regard Anne Boleyn as a human before anything else.
Well done Hayley, this is a wonderful book and I really enjoyed it.
June 2, 2024
Snarky, meanspirited, derisive, and condescending. I'm not describing the actions of Anne Boleyn, the second wife of King Henry VIII, but rather the writing style of this supposed history book by Hayley Nolan. It reads as if a smart-ass, petulant college student with a big axe to grind wrote it and not an up-and-coming British historian as Nolan appears to be.
As a reader, I found the writing style to be not only surprising (perhaps even shocking), but also so haughty and arrogant that it made me question the very premise of the book. That premise is that everything we know about Anne Boleyn is patently false, an absolute lie. That premise is that every other historian who has been researching and writing about Anne Boleyn for five centuries is wrong. That premise is that only Hayley Nolan is right. And she emphasizes her unique position among all these other historians by contemptibly disparaging them almost by name with scathing and mocking comments. (She hints so broadly at who she means that even I could figure out some of them.)
Here is the most troubling fact of all: Hayley Nolan may be right about Anne Boleyn! It's quite possible. She maintains that Anne was vilified by Thomas Cromwell and others because she was such a politically powerful woman and not because she was a scheming seductress. According to Nolan, Anne was the brains and motivator—not King Henry VIII—behind the evangelical movement that ousted the Roman Catholic Church and created the Church of England, as well as being one of the age's leading philanthropists, giving money to those most in need. In modern day language, she was a champion of religious freedom and a fighter for human rights. Nolan also combines historical facts with psychological analysis, claiming that Henry was a mentally ill sociopath, which is why he could have Anne beheaded without remorse and marry Jane Seymour 10 days later.
Nolan maintains that she is presenting a groundbreaking reexamination of Anne Boleyn and her relationship with King Henry VIII that is supported by the full, uncensored evidence that no one else has ever found. Until now. By her alone. And while Nolan's discourse is fascinating, I look askance at it because she has presented her facts, arguments, and theses in such contemptuous and pompous prose that it made me appalled this book was ever taken seriously enough to be published.
This is the most frustrating part for me as a reader and an avid student of Tudor history: Nolan does offer fascinating ideas and insight into the troubled dynamics of this royal relationship, but I couldn't get past the snarky, meanspirited, derisive, and condescending writing style to appreciate it.
Read with caution.
As a reader, I found the writing style to be not only surprising (perhaps even shocking), but also so haughty and arrogant that it made me question the very premise of the book. That premise is that everything we know about Anne Boleyn is patently false, an absolute lie. That premise is that every other historian who has been researching and writing about Anne Boleyn for five centuries is wrong. That premise is that only Hayley Nolan is right. And she emphasizes her unique position among all these other historians by contemptibly disparaging them almost by name with scathing and mocking comments. (She hints so broadly at who she means that even I could figure out some of them.)
Here is the most troubling fact of all: Hayley Nolan may be right about Anne Boleyn! It's quite possible. She maintains that Anne was vilified by Thomas Cromwell and others because she was such a politically powerful woman and not because she was a scheming seductress. According to Nolan, Anne was the brains and motivator—not King Henry VIII—behind the evangelical movement that ousted the Roman Catholic Church and created the Church of England, as well as being one of the age's leading philanthropists, giving money to those most in need. In modern day language, she was a champion of religious freedom and a fighter for human rights. Nolan also combines historical facts with psychological analysis, claiming that Henry was a mentally ill sociopath, which is why he could have Anne beheaded without remorse and marry Jane Seymour 10 days later.
Nolan maintains that she is presenting a groundbreaking reexamination of Anne Boleyn and her relationship with King Henry VIII that is supported by the full, uncensored evidence that no one else has ever found. Until now. By her alone. And while Nolan's discourse is fascinating, I look askance at it because she has presented her facts, arguments, and theses in such contemptuous and pompous prose that it made me appalled this book was ever taken seriously enough to be published.
This is the most frustrating part for me as a reader and an avid student of Tudor history: Nolan does offer fascinating ideas and insight into the troubled dynamics of this royal relationship, but I couldn't get past the snarky, meanspirited, derisive, and condescending writing style to appreciate it.
Read with caution.
March 17, 2023
This book is about finding out who the real Anne Boleyn was and trying to ignore the propaganda that was spread about her in the sixteenth century, this is a honest and unbiased account of what happened and what went on in Anne’s life that led up to her death.
During this time period, women weren’t meant to be heard, they were meant to smile and look pretty and god forbid actually having a conversation, the fact that Anne was confident, intelligent and a good conversationalist led to the rumours of her flirtations, Anne was viewed as a foreigner, having spent much of her life at the French court, so she worked really hard to fit in and be seen as someone worth being a part of the English court.
It doesn’t go without notice that most of the record keepers of that period were men and misogynistic views were rife and accepted, men blamed Anne Boleyn because they were attracted to her rather than her being the vixen they portrayed her as.
We explore Henry viiis mental heath and how it affected his relationships with his mistresses and his wives. This dispels the notion that Henry was a hopeless romantic, the ruthlessness in which he pursued Anne and then how cruelly he cast her aside at the end points to him being very mentally unwell, though obviously at this point in history he just went down as a tyrant. We can’t excuse this behaviour at all, mental health doesn’t excuse the fact he had two of his wives murdered.
Anne was a very complex person, she helped the underdog, supported a lot of charitable causes and was headstrong and passionate about standing up for what she believed in. She was quick to anger but this means she was only human. We are constantly led to believe she was a manipulative harlot whispering in the kings ear but as his cruelty continued long after her death we can easily see this wasn’t the case.
As we reach the final conclusion, it is clear that in her final hours she was at peace with what was to happen to her, and her final speech was to protect her daughter. I wonder what Anne would think to know her daughter went on to be the formidable Elizabeth 1st!
During this time period, women weren’t meant to be heard, they were meant to smile and look pretty and god forbid actually having a conversation, the fact that Anne was confident, intelligent and a good conversationalist led to the rumours of her flirtations, Anne was viewed as a foreigner, having spent much of her life at the French court, so she worked really hard to fit in and be seen as someone worth being a part of the English court.
It doesn’t go without notice that most of the record keepers of that period were men and misogynistic views were rife and accepted, men blamed Anne Boleyn because they were attracted to her rather than her being the vixen they portrayed her as.
We explore Henry viiis mental heath and how it affected his relationships with his mistresses and his wives. This dispels the notion that Henry was a hopeless romantic, the ruthlessness in which he pursued Anne and then how cruelly he cast her aside at the end points to him being very mentally unwell, though obviously at this point in history he just went down as a tyrant. We can’t excuse this behaviour at all, mental health doesn’t excuse the fact he had two of his wives murdered.
Anne was a very complex person, she helped the underdog, supported a lot of charitable causes and was headstrong and passionate about standing up for what she believed in. She was quick to anger but this means she was only human. We are constantly led to believe she was a manipulative harlot whispering in the kings ear but as his cruelty continued long after her death we can easily see this wasn’t the case.
As we reach the final conclusion, it is clear that in her final hours she was at peace with what was to happen to her, and her final speech was to protect her daughter. I wonder what Anne would think to know her daughter went on to be the formidable Elizabeth 1st!
February 16, 2021
This was absolutely one of the best biographies I have ever read. Witty, scintillating, and absolutely mind blowing. For 500 years Anne Bolelyn has been made to be among the world's top 5 seductresses: we all know the novels I'm talking about. 🤢 This forthright and and downright funny book wipes away all those terrible lies, and tells us the beautiful truth about a remarkable woman. It also points out the saddest truths of all, ones that women are no closer to finding answers for in the 21st century than we were in Tudor England. Men are praised for their ambition, and their ability to succeed; men are considered wise when they can wield all the wisdom of politics and diplomacy. Men aren't punished for having goals, for wanting positions of power to change the world. Men aren't considered brazen hussies when they make advantageous matches, or manipulative, conniving bitches who are determined to usurp the golden and sacred halls of authority if they - gasp! - get to make the rules. But let a woman say she's going to make up her own mind, form her own circle of control, and enact legislation on her own terms, and suddenly she's only there because she has slept her way to the top, and gets her way by showing her boobs at all the meetings. Heaven forbid women have the temerity to use our brains!
June 14, 2021
Really wanted to like this book, as I agree Anne Boleyn was innocent and has been misrepresented through history. This book, however, I found very annoying and I struggled through it. It read more like a rant than a history book, and whilst I agree with all the subject matter the way it was presented was really very irritating. A lot of it felt like having a conversation with an angry, drunk historian. So sorry, really wanted to like this book but the style wasn't for me. I can see that others might find it refreshing, so its worth a try for other readers, and I do not fault the facts, on those I agree with the author.
Read
December 3, 2019I did NOT read this. Thanks to all the Goodreads reviewers, I returned it for a refund. Not even one good review-mostly one star. There is too much excellent 16th century and Tudor history out there to waste my time on this.
June 3, 2020
This book claims to be an "exposé". "History has lied.", we are told. Over and over again Hayley Nolan pushes onto us the point that historians have lied to us, they have hidden the truth!!!!!!. Either through "lazy" research, or by upholding some 500-year conspiracy, historians have purposefully hidden from us Anne Boleyn's story. Even the archives are complicit in this cover-up. Somehow even inanimate objects have wanted to bury Anne's truth. The archives, I quote, "begrudgingly revealed" to Nolan such truth, after years of "rigorous and extensive research". Historians have been out to get us from the start, hiding away Anne's story for centuries. Except they haven't. It's flat-out not true.
Nolan acts the entire way through this book like she is telling us something groundbreakingly new. Something absolutely no one has ever dared to suggest before. But she's not. Absolutely nothing she says is something I haven't read before. And what makes it worse is that Nolan must know she's not introducing a radically new argument. She will make a "groundbreaking" statement, but when you look at her endnotes for said statement, she doesn't cite some lost manuscript she's discovered. She cites historians and works that are incredibly popular. She cites Eric Ives and Elizabeth Norton a lot, and I would wager that pretty much anyone reading this work is aware of at least Ives' seminal work on Anne's life. She literally takes arguments that have been made by historians for decades, presents them as her own, and tells you she's doing something nobody has ever done before, ever!. This entire book rests entirely on the works of other historians, and that is completely, 100% fine. Just don't call it an "exposé" if you're exposing bugger all.
Her claims of doing "exhaustive" research herself in the archives seems to be either a complete fabrication, or else she found nothing useful during those hours in an archive. Her bibliography lists a woeful fourteen primary sources, and almost every. single. one. is a printed or online source. Not a single manuscript is listed. This is the primary source list of a first-year undergraduate essay, not a groundbreaking book that challenges everything we thought we knew about Anne Boleyn (makes her calling other historians "lazy" quite hypocritical, doesn't it...) She also extensively psycho-analyses both Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn (again, claiming she is the first person to ever do this; she's not. Suzannah Lipscomb in her book 1536 did it very, very well. And again!! Nolan cites this work! She bloody well knows it's not new!). Psychological analysis is interesting but for me there is a fine line between interesting conjecture and bold claims that can literally never be proven. Nolan claims that Henry VIII was definitely a sociopath, and she sticks in quotes from psychologists and bits of science to back herself up. But without the individual right there in front of you, you can't make such definite claims. They lived five hundred years ago - we can never know for sure. To try and build an entire argument on it is impossible, but that's exactly what Nolan has tried to do.
Her writing style is also, for me, far too casual. She repeatedly uses hashtags like "#awkward", "#TeamAragon", "#thetruthwillout", and says things like "for bants" and "totally hilare". For some readers this will probably be great. It certainly doesn't read like a dry history book, and so perhaps for a more casual audience this kind of style is perfect. But it didn't work at all for me. And even for the casual audience, I don't think this is a book I would recommend. Repeatedly Nolan calls herself the "whistle-blower". But this whistle has been blown. Repeatedly. For decades now. Absolutely nothing is new here. Nothing. Sure, it might be a good read if you know literally nothing whatsoever about Anne Boleyn. But even then... I would absolutely not suggest you start here.
Nolan acts the entire way through this book like she is telling us something groundbreakingly new. Something absolutely no one has ever dared to suggest before. But she's not. Absolutely nothing she says is something I haven't read before. And what makes it worse is that Nolan must know she's not introducing a radically new argument. She will make a "groundbreaking" statement, but when you look at her endnotes for said statement, she doesn't cite some lost manuscript she's discovered. She cites historians and works that are incredibly popular. She cites Eric Ives and Elizabeth Norton a lot, and I would wager that pretty much anyone reading this work is aware of at least Ives' seminal work on Anne's life. She literally takes arguments that have been made by historians for decades, presents them as her own, and tells you she's doing something nobody has ever done before, ever!. This entire book rests entirely on the works of other historians, and that is completely, 100% fine. Just don't call it an "exposé" if you're exposing bugger all.
Her claims of doing "exhaustive" research herself in the archives seems to be either a complete fabrication, or else she found nothing useful during those hours in an archive. Her bibliography lists a woeful fourteen primary sources, and almost every. single. one. is a printed or online source. Not a single manuscript is listed. This is the primary source list of a first-year undergraduate essay, not a groundbreaking book that challenges everything we thought we knew about Anne Boleyn (makes her calling other historians "lazy" quite hypocritical, doesn't it...) She also extensively psycho-analyses both Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn (again, claiming she is the first person to ever do this; she's not. Suzannah Lipscomb in her book 1536 did it very, very well. And again!! Nolan cites this work! She bloody well knows it's not new!). Psychological analysis is interesting but for me there is a fine line between interesting conjecture and bold claims that can literally never be proven. Nolan claims that Henry VIII was definitely a sociopath, and she sticks in quotes from psychologists and bits of science to back herself up. But without the individual right there in front of you, you can't make such definite claims. They lived five hundred years ago - we can never know for sure. To try and build an entire argument on it is impossible, but that's exactly what Nolan has tried to do.
Her writing style is also, for me, far too casual. She repeatedly uses hashtags like "#awkward", "#TeamAragon", "#thetruthwillout", and says things like "for bants" and "totally hilare". For some readers this will probably be great. It certainly doesn't read like a dry history book, and so perhaps for a more casual audience this kind of style is perfect. But it didn't work at all for me. And even for the casual audience, I don't think this is a book I would recommend. Repeatedly Nolan calls herself the "whistle-blower". But this whistle has been blown. Repeatedly. For decades now. Absolutely nothing is new here. Nothing. Sure, it might be a good read if you know literally nothing whatsoever about Anne Boleyn. But even then... I would absolutely not suggest you start here.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 578 reviews