What do you think?
Rate this book
Two Houses, Two Kingdoms: A History of France and England, 1100–1300
The twelfth and thirteenth centuries were a time of personal monarchy, when the close friendship or petty feuding between kings and queens could determine the course of history. The Capetians of France and the Angevins of England waged war, made peace, and intermarried. The lands under the control of the English king once reached to within a few miles of Paris, and those ruled by the French house, at their apogee, crossed the Channel and encompassed London itself.
In this lively, engaging history, Catherine Hanley traces the great clashes, and occasional friendships, of the two dynasties. Along the way, she emphasizes the fascinating and influential women of the houses—including Eleanor of Aquitaine and Blanche of Castille—and shows how personalities and familial bonds shaped the fate of two countries. This is a tale of two intertwined dynasties that shaped the present and the future of England and France, told through the stories of the people involved.
In this lively, engaging history, Catherine Hanley traces the great clashes, and occasional friendships, of the two dynasties. Along the way, she emphasizes the fascinating and influential women of the houses—including Eleanor of Aquitaine and Blanche of Castille—and shows how personalities and familial bonds shaped the fate of two countries. This is a tale of two intertwined dynasties that shaped the present and the future of England and France, told through the stories of the people involved.
480 pages, Hardcover
First published August 9, 2022
57 people are currently reading
1307 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 77 reviews
August 14, 2022
Who needs thrillers and soap operas when you have real 12-13th century clashes between the royal houses of England and France - the Plantagenets/Angevins and the Capetians - who embroiled their countries in their neverending power squabbles leading to constant violence and deaths and readjustment of political maps.
Set in 1100-1300, Two Houses, Two Kingdoms covers the time starting a few decades after William the Conqueror brought Norman rule to England and ending with the wedding between Edward II of England and Isabella, daughter of Philip IV of France, setting in place some of the pieces of the puzzle that very soon would lead to the collapse of the direct line of the Capetian dynasty and the Hundred Years’ War between England and France.
(As an aside, as a preteen I absolutely inhaled “The Accursed Kings” series by Maurice Druon - starting with The Iron King - that dealt with the drama of England and France royalty and pre-war events in both countries from 1314 on. I loved those books and I almost screamed in frustration when this book ended before them - even if I knew it would).
Catherine Hanley navigates the telling of the complicated, convoluted webs of the royal affairs of that time with impressive skills. Not only there seems to be just a handful of names that the royalty opted to use — “It is unfortunate, for the purposes of clarity and possibly even sanity, that every single French king we will meet is called either Philip or Louis” — but the familial relationships between the royal houses were not as much of a family tree as a hopelessly intertwined and tangled up family shrubbery where political marriages combined with high rates of widowhood and remarriages led to everyone being everyone’s cousins, uncles, aunts and all matters of step-relatives. Not to mention the peculiar relationship of English kings also holding territories in and around France, leading to complicated sovereign-vassal tensions and squabbles.
Hanley, through nothing short of miraculous skills and great storytelling skills manages to keep all these Henrys, Philips, Louises, Matildas, Eleanors and Blanches pretty distinct. It’s dense with information and yet very readable, engaging even if not at all simple. And a bonus point — despite being set in very patriarchal times it does not gloss over women and their roles and lives.
I found it lively, even if a bit complicated — and very interesting.
4.5 stars.
——————
Thanks to NetGalley and Yale University Press for providing me with a digital ARC in exchange for an honest review.
——————
Also posted on my blog.
“This is a book about people. In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the personal could influence the political to a great extent, and nowhere is this better exemplified than in the relationship between the ruling houses of France and England, whose members waged war, made peace and intermarried – sometimes almost simultaneously – in a complex web of relationships. These people, these kings and queens, siblings, children and cousins, held positions determined by birth; positions that often involved playing a role on the national and international stage from a very young age. Their life stories, their formative experiences and their interpersonal relationships shaped the context of decisions and actions that had the potential to affect the lives and livelihoods of millions.”
Set in 1100-1300, Two Houses, Two Kingdoms covers the time starting a few decades after William the Conqueror brought Norman rule to England and ending with the wedding between Edward II of England and Isabella, daughter of Philip IV of France, setting in place some of the pieces of the puzzle that very soon would lead to the collapse of the direct line of the Capetian dynasty and the Hundred Years’ War between England and France.
(As an aside, as a preteen I absolutely inhaled “The Accursed Kings” series by Maurice Druon - starting with The Iron King - that dealt with the drama of England and France royalty and pre-war events in both countries from 1314 on. I loved those books and I almost screamed in frustration when this book ended before them - even if I knew it would).
Catherine Hanley navigates the telling of the complicated, convoluted webs of the royal affairs of that time with impressive skills. Not only there seems to be just a handful of names that the royalty opted to use — “It is unfortunate, for the purposes of clarity and possibly even sanity, that every single French king we will meet is called either Philip or Louis” — but the familial relationships between the royal houses were not as much of a family tree as a hopelessly intertwined and tangled up family shrubbery where political marriages combined with high rates of widowhood and remarriages led to everyone being everyone’s cousins, uncles, aunts and all matters of step-relatives. Not to mention the peculiar relationship of English kings also holding territories in and around France, leading to complicated sovereign-vassal tensions and squabbles.
“Edward I and Philip III were related to each other multiple times over. As Louis IX had earlier emphasised to his nobles, they were first cousins, as their mothers were sisters; additionally, on their fathers’ sides they were second cousins once removed, Edward’s grandfather John and Philip’s great-grandmother Eleanor having been brother and sister. And further back still, via various lines of descent, it so happened that both kings were descended from Henry I of England and Louis VI of France.”
Hanley, through nothing short of miraculous skills and great storytelling skills manages to keep all these Henrys, Philips, Louises, Matildas, Eleanors and Blanches pretty distinct. It’s dense with information and yet very readable, engaging even if not at all simple. And a bonus point — despite being set in very patriarchal times it does not gloss over women and their roles and lives.
I found it lively, even if a bit complicated — and very interesting.
“John still had the support of a few of the highest men in the land: his half-brother William Longsword, earl of Salisbury; his cousin William de Warenne, earl of Surrey; William Marshal, earl of Pembroke; Ranulf de Blundeville, earl of Chester; and William d’Aubigny, earl of Arundel.”
(Ranulf, you are my favorite just for not being a William in this passage.)
(If time travel is ever invented, I’m going back to circa 1100 and giving them a baby names book.)
4.5 stars.
——————
Thanks to NetGalley and Yale University Press for providing me with a digital ARC in exchange for an honest review.
——————
Also posted on my blog.
January 26, 2025
Two Houses, Two Kingdoms chronicles English-French relations between 1100-1300, principally concentrating on the interactions of the two nations' ruling families. While the subject matter is interesting, this focus, regrettably, leads to the reader often being inundated with names as Hanley explains the marriages and political alliances not only of monarchs, but also assorted royal siblings and offspring.
August 4, 2022
Houses, Two Kingdoms: A History of France and England, 1100–1300 by Catherine Hanley is a wonderful nonfiction that dives into the two royal dynasties of England and France. Just wonderful!
I am a huge fan of English history, so I knew quite a bit about the monarchy during these two centuries, but I learned a bit more when the author was able to take the royal house of France and incorporate those figures and how the relationships (familial, friendship, and by marriage) integrated into the English monarchy.
We are able to see specifically how the history of England was molded by these two groups, and how they influenced their respective countries and one another through this presentation. I was impressed with the level of research, the passion, and the layout. The maps/lists/lineages really helped, especially when there are so many historic figures with the same name. It flew by and was easy to read, comprehend, and enjoy.
I highly recommend.
5/5 stars
Thank you NG and Yale University Press for this wonderful arc and in return I am submitting my unbiased and voluntary review and opinion.
I am posting this review to my GR and Bookbub accounts immediately and will post it to my Amazon, Instagram, and B&N accounts upon publication on 8/9/22.
I am a huge fan of English history, so I knew quite a bit about the monarchy during these two centuries, but I learned a bit more when the author was able to take the royal house of France and incorporate those figures and how the relationships (familial, friendship, and by marriage) integrated into the English monarchy.
We are able to see specifically how the history of England was molded by these two groups, and how they influenced their respective countries and one another through this presentation. I was impressed with the level of research, the passion, and the layout. The maps/lists/lineages really helped, especially when there are so many historic figures with the same name. It flew by and was easy to read, comprehend, and enjoy.
I highly recommend.
5/5 stars
Thank you NG and Yale University Press for this wonderful arc and in return I am submitting my unbiased and voluntary review and opinion.
I am posting this review to my GR and Bookbub accounts immediately and will post it to my Amazon, Instagram, and B&N accounts upon publication on 8/9/22.
Read
August 1, 2025dnf at 30%
im finding out that as a reader of nonfiction i much prefer deep dives rather than sweeping accounts. this book is the latter and i don't think it's for me. i'd rather just read 10 books each devoted to a specific personality, generation, time period etc than one book trying to cover it all.
for future readers, this might not be obvious from the blurb but this book is very specific in what it is trying to do, that is, to limit itself only to the interactions between the two ruling houses in france and england, dont expect to gain a good idea of anything else. better come prepared. but then if ive already read tons of books on the period and its key figures why would i want to read this shallow overview? i guess i just dont get the target audience for this book, honestly. maybe it's for the researchers mostly.
im finding out that as a reader of nonfiction i much prefer deep dives rather than sweeping accounts. this book is the latter and i don't think it's for me. i'd rather just read 10 books each devoted to a specific personality, generation, time period etc than one book trying to cover it all.
for future readers, this might not be obvious from the blurb but this book is very specific in what it is trying to do, that is, to limit itself only to the interactions between the two ruling houses in france and england, dont expect to gain a good idea of anything else. better come prepared. but then if ive already read tons of books on the period and its key figures why would i want to read this shallow overview? i guess i just dont get the target audience for this book, honestly. maybe it's for the researchers mostly.
August 16, 2023
Take a moment to reflect on the biggest modern-day rivalries/enemies/competitors you can surmise: this could be sports teams, businesses, politicians, etc. Whichever or whomever you pick; is probably child’s play in comparison to the England versus France ‘hate’ that spanned hundreds and hundreds of years trickling down to contemporary times. Modern historians tend to pick either Anglophile or Francophile ‘sides’; thus keeping the clashes continuous. The intertwined history of the two countries is rife with wars, battles, murders/assassinations, treaties/broken treaties, marriages (keep your enemies close!), revenge and betrayals. This bitterness was especially contingent during the middle ages and medieval times with its tentacles reaching out many years to come. Catherine Hanley ambitiously highlights this period of turmoil between England and France in, “Two Houses, Two Kingdoms: A History of France and England 1100 – 1300”.
“Two Houses, Two Kingdoms” is an innovative piece with Hanley aspiring to highlight 200 years of scrupulous bickering between the French and English monarchs/nobility of the Capetians of France and Angevins of England (although that is over-simplifying the houses involved but it is best understood as such). Before diving in; Hanley offers a breakdown of the key monarchical and noble figures of France and England, marriages and how they colluded, offspring, etc. This is an absolutely necessary supplement and will be thumbed by all readers even if on the most expert knowledge level. “Two Houses, Two Kingdoms” is immediately overwhelming with all the names/figures and yet the text is easy to digest being reflective of Hanley’s status as a remarkable writer. The material may be too concentrated to remember in its entirety; but “Two Houses, Two Kingdoms” is an enjoyable read regardless.
Hanley infuses “Two Houses, Two Kingdoms” with a mind-blowing amount of information that is impressive in both its scope and that she was able to keep track of it, herself. Hanley weaves a colorful and vivid tapestry that simultaneously maintains clarity but with cinematic twist making “Two Houses, Two Kingdoms” a floral narrative rather a school history text book (although it most certainly doubles as an excellent resource for other historians or even historical-fiction authors). The content is simply staggering in research and detail.
As opposed to some other historians; Hanley excels at not showcasing any strong biases/opinions concerning any individuals or events and remaining firmly objective. Even when breaking down psyches and intentions/motives; Hanley composes the analyses based on facts and proofs instead of any personal meanderings. This formula allows Hanley to amply bust previously presented myths and unweave webs with lucidness in “Two Houses, Two Kingdoms”.
“Two Houses, Two Kingdoms” features a well-rounded description of events viewed from various channels and perspectives versus the traditional, stereotypical, or one-sided arguments that often litter history pages. For example, Hanley doesn’t romanticize Richard the Lionheart and conversely shows his brutal side but without criticizing him in childish or chiding manner. The ‘Devil’s Brood’ and Eleanor of Aquitaine is traversed in a refreshing and macro way that sticks out among comparable texts. Hanley is nothing but academic and scholarly when it comes to the facts.
Those readers interested in military tactics and battlefield machinations will be satisfied with “Two Houses, Two Kingdoms” as Hanley transports readers to ground zero making these descriptions come alive in a magically robust manner. “Two Houses, Two Kingdoms” can’t be accused of being devoid of passion.
“Two Houses, Two Kingdoms” isn’t without some faults that can be seen throughout. The text suffers from consistency issues with some sections being too dry and others overly energetic and sentimental. Jumps in chronology back and forth are also evident which is obviously due to the attempt to unravel what was occurring in both countries during contemporaneous time spans and therefore needing to backtrack; but it consequentially causes some reader confusion. Hanley also breaks the 4th wall too often in the vein of, “We will discuss this again later…”, “Coming up…”, “More in next chapter…”, “As we already saw in Chapter”, etc. This may not bother all readers but it shatters the academia when done so frequently.
Hanley makes a valiant effort at including the roles played by females during the 200-year period but as is a common tale: history is told by men and women are written out thus leaving less records than optimal or preferred. “Two Houses, Two Kingdoms” is mostly a male-centric history but at no fault of Hanley or her research.
The concluding chapters of “Two Houses, Two Kingdoms” are somewhat disoriented and thin resulting in a weak and flimsy ending. This is redeemed by a quick, but emotional, epilogue that seems to be a cliff hanger for a future piece. “Two Houses, Two Kingdoms” also includes a section of photo plates, abundantly annotated notes and a gloriously extensive source list.
“Two Houses, Two Kingdoms” is absolutely recommended for both novice and expert history readers; despite whether loyalties lay with England or France in order to come away with a better understanding of the friction between the two countries (and their inhabitants). Even considering the intimidation of the massive scope of content and some of Hanley’s weaknesses; “Two Houses, Two Kingdoms” is a remarkable and noteworthy read.
“Two Houses, Two Kingdoms” is an innovative piece with Hanley aspiring to highlight 200 years of scrupulous bickering between the French and English monarchs/nobility of the Capetians of France and Angevins of England (although that is over-simplifying the houses involved but it is best understood as such). Before diving in; Hanley offers a breakdown of the key monarchical and noble figures of France and England, marriages and how they colluded, offspring, etc. This is an absolutely necessary supplement and will be thumbed by all readers even if on the most expert knowledge level. “Two Houses, Two Kingdoms” is immediately overwhelming with all the names/figures and yet the text is easy to digest being reflective of Hanley’s status as a remarkable writer. The material may be too concentrated to remember in its entirety; but “Two Houses, Two Kingdoms” is an enjoyable read regardless.
Hanley infuses “Two Houses, Two Kingdoms” with a mind-blowing amount of information that is impressive in both its scope and that she was able to keep track of it, herself. Hanley weaves a colorful and vivid tapestry that simultaneously maintains clarity but with cinematic twist making “Two Houses, Two Kingdoms” a floral narrative rather a school history text book (although it most certainly doubles as an excellent resource for other historians or even historical-fiction authors). The content is simply staggering in research and detail.
As opposed to some other historians; Hanley excels at not showcasing any strong biases/opinions concerning any individuals or events and remaining firmly objective. Even when breaking down psyches and intentions/motives; Hanley composes the analyses based on facts and proofs instead of any personal meanderings. This formula allows Hanley to amply bust previously presented myths and unweave webs with lucidness in “Two Houses, Two Kingdoms”.
“Two Houses, Two Kingdoms” features a well-rounded description of events viewed from various channels and perspectives versus the traditional, stereotypical, or one-sided arguments that often litter history pages. For example, Hanley doesn’t romanticize Richard the Lionheart and conversely shows his brutal side but without criticizing him in childish or chiding manner. The ‘Devil’s Brood’ and Eleanor of Aquitaine is traversed in a refreshing and macro way that sticks out among comparable texts. Hanley is nothing but academic and scholarly when it comes to the facts.
Those readers interested in military tactics and battlefield machinations will be satisfied with “Two Houses, Two Kingdoms” as Hanley transports readers to ground zero making these descriptions come alive in a magically robust manner. “Two Houses, Two Kingdoms” can’t be accused of being devoid of passion.
“Two Houses, Two Kingdoms” isn’t without some faults that can be seen throughout. The text suffers from consistency issues with some sections being too dry and others overly energetic and sentimental. Jumps in chronology back and forth are also evident which is obviously due to the attempt to unravel what was occurring in both countries during contemporaneous time spans and therefore needing to backtrack; but it consequentially causes some reader confusion. Hanley also breaks the 4th wall too often in the vein of, “We will discuss this again later…”, “Coming up…”, “More in next chapter…”, “As we already saw in Chapter”, etc. This may not bother all readers but it shatters the academia when done so frequently.
Hanley makes a valiant effort at including the roles played by females during the 200-year period but as is a common tale: history is told by men and women are written out thus leaving less records than optimal or preferred. “Two Houses, Two Kingdoms” is mostly a male-centric history but at no fault of Hanley or her research.
The concluding chapters of “Two Houses, Two Kingdoms” are somewhat disoriented and thin resulting in a weak and flimsy ending. This is redeemed by a quick, but emotional, epilogue that seems to be a cliff hanger for a future piece. “Two Houses, Two Kingdoms” also includes a section of photo plates, abundantly annotated notes and a gloriously extensive source list.
“Two Houses, Two Kingdoms” is absolutely recommended for both novice and expert history readers; despite whether loyalties lay with England or France in order to come away with a better understanding of the friction between the two countries (and their inhabitants). Even considering the intimidation of the massive scope of content and some of Hanley’s weaknesses; “Two Houses, Two Kingdoms” is a remarkable and noteworthy read.
Read
October 23, 2024Royalty reads 2024
December 3, 2024
Another brilliant history book I’ve got to explore this year! As my reading lists suggest I love Plantagenets history and have read many books about it! What makes this book even more brilliant is seeing the same events from the French perspective. I’ve never read a book which delves into both sides and it really gave me a whole new view point and appreciation.
I learnt a lot more about people like Louis the 9th which was really entertaining. They are often portrayed as the antagonist to the Plantagenets but in this I got to see them as people and understand their motives.
The way the history has been compiled is seamless and easy to follow. It really takes into account people who are often ignored such as the women in power at the time!
Overall it is very well researched, brilliantly put together, wonderfully entertaining and I would absolutely recommend to anyone who enjoys medieval European history. Any big fans of the Plantagenets or those focused on English history should definitely give this one a go as it really opens your eyes to other avenues.
I only wish it was a little longer. It ended at a strange point in my opinion and I really wish it had gone up to Edward 3rd or at least the end of the Capetian line. However, I am aware this is selfish as I am a massive Edward 3rd fan and desiring more only solidifies how much I loved this book!
I learnt a lot more about people like Louis the 9th which was really entertaining. They are often portrayed as the antagonist to the Plantagenets but in this I got to see them as people and understand their motives.
The way the history has been compiled is seamless and easy to follow. It really takes into account people who are often ignored such as the women in power at the time!
Overall it is very well researched, brilliantly put together, wonderfully entertaining and I would absolutely recommend to anyone who enjoys medieval European history. Any big fans of the Plantagenets or those focused on English history should definitely give this one a go as it really opens your eyes to other avenues.
I only wish it was a little longer. It ended at a strange point in my opinion and I really wish it had gone up to Edward 3rd or at least the end of the Capetian line. However, I am aware this is selfish as I am a massive Edward 3rd fan and desiring more only solidifies how much I loved this book!
July 20, 2022
I first came across Catherine Hanley when she was speaking about Louis VIII at Gloucester History Festival in 2020 when everything was online. I enjoyed it so much that I went on to listen to her excellent book about Empress Matilda and read the first of her novels set in the period covered by this book. That she has written non-fiction and fiction is clear – Two Houses, Two Kingdoms hits a sweet spot of proper scholarly history and ripsnorting narrative.
It’s common for history books not to try to be exhaustive but the scope is made especially clear here – only the events pertinent to the interaction of the two royal houses of England and France are covered (I also found it refreshing to have a note at the beginning to address different types of reader and reading). Even given that stricture, it’s still no mean feat to make a history of this period easy to understand, given the separate duchies and counties of what is now largely France and the preponderance of repeated names and intermarriage. The maps and family information at the beginning of the book are really helpful so it’s definitely a book to read in hard copy (which I didn’t but them’s the breaks if you get to read a digital advance proof copy). If the premise sounds a little dry for your taste, fear not – this is eminently readable, even the relatively short passages about military engagements, not something that can be said about some history writing.
I had previously read a little about some of the people involved but it was really interesting to find out more about, for example, Richard I. All too often painted simply in positive contrast to his brother bad King John and as a heroic Crusader, here we learn more about his less palatable side: massacring prisoners of war and apparent indifference to his wife Berengaria of Navarre. Hanley has made a valiant effort to provide more information about the women in the picture but the sources are unhelpful. For example, we are not privy to the thoughts of Isabella of Angoulême. Was she callous to leave her recently crowned 9-year-old son Henry III in England when she returned home to Poitou or finally making her own decisions having been set free from a life she had not chosen by the death of John? I would happily read a whole book about her and Blanche of Castille but I suspect the sources are lacking. Maybe it’s time to read the next of Catherine Hanley’s Mediaeval Mysteries.
I received a free proof copy of this book via NetGalley in return for an honest review.
It’s common for history books not to try to be exhaustive but the scope is made especially clear here – only the events pertinent to the interaction of the two royal houses of England and France are covered (I also found it refreshing to have a note at the beginning to address different types of reader and reading). Even given that stricture, it’s still no mean feat to make a history of this period easy to understand, given the separate duchies and counties of what is now largely France and the preponderance of repeated names and intermarriage. The maps and family information at the beginning of the book are really helpful so it’s definitely a book to read in hard copy (which I didn’t but them’s the breaks if you get to read a digital advance proof copy). If the premise sounds a little dry for your taste, fear not – this is eminently readable, even the relatively short passages about military engagements, not something that can be said about some history writing.
I had previously read a little about some of the people involved but it was really interesting to find out more about, for example, Richard I. All too often painted simply in positive contrast to his brother bad King John and as a heroic Crusader, here we learn more about his less palatable side: massacring prisoners of war and apparent indifference to his wife Berengaria of Navarre. Hanley has made a valiant effort to provide more information about the women in the picture but the sources are unhelpful. For example, we are not privy to the thoughts of Isabella of Angoulême. Was she callous to leave her recently crowned 9-year-old son Henry III in England when she returned home to Poitou or finally making her own decisions having been set free from a life she had not chosen by the death of John? I would happily read a whole book about her and Blanche of Castille but I suspect the sources are lacking. Maybe it’s time to read the next of Catherine Hanley’s Mediaeval Mysteries.
I received a free proof copy of this book via NetGalley in return for an honest review.
May 23, 2024
I came into this desperate to understand what was going on in now Northern France during this time period, and having now read an entire book on it, I’m still not sure I understand it fully. And I say this as a person with multiple degrees in history who is, y’know, generally pretty good at this stuff.
This is a good narrative account of England and France in this time period and the author really does an excellent job of making it interesting and keeping the story moving. That said, I’m not sure it truly clarifies much in terms of the bigger picture. And while I’m always here for the minutiae of just about anything, it was the broader-stroke stuff I was looking for here and mostly I didn’t get it.
It’s an interesting book regardless though, and a worthy read for both small details and a solid narrative account of a really messy period of succession in both countries.
This is a good narrative account of England and France in this time period and the author really does an excellent job of making it interesting and keeping the story moving. That said, I’m not sure it truly clarifies much in terms of the bigger picture. And while I’m always here for the minutiae of just about anything, it was the broader-stroke stuff I was looking for here and mostly I didn’t get it.
It’s an interesting book regardless though, and a worthy read for both small details and a solid narrative account of a really messy period of succession in both countries.
October 13, 2024
A strong and well-written narrative of two centuries of development in England and France. This is well-trodden ground for me, but I appreciated the way that Hanley sought to demonstrate the similarities between the countries’ development and how this more often than not tied into the close relationships between the ruling elites of each kingdom.
I would have liked more context at what I felt were pivotal moments, as well as to avoid the construction ‘more on that later’, which I felt broke the narrative at times, but I can see why Hanley chose to write a more focused study.
Overall, a very clearly well-researched account, which writes a strong popular history which is impeccably sourced for those of a more academic persuasion.
I would have liked more context at what I felt were pivotal moments, as well as to avoid the construction ‘more on that later’, which I felt broke the narrative at times, but I can see why Hanley chose to write a more focused study.
Overall, a very clearly well-researched account, which writes a strong popular history which is impeccably sourced for those of a more academic persuasion.
September 18, 2024
absolutely TORE through this. incredibly readible, though i did sometimes yearn for a little more detail, but considering the amount of time it covers i cant blame the author for cutting things short.
i do think you could start a drinking game as well for the amount of times the phrase 'we will meet them again in the next chapter' but only if you wanted to die of liver poisoning
i do think you could start a drinking game as well for the amount of times the phrase 'we will meet them again in the next chapter' but only if you wanted to die of liver poisoning
August 4, 2024
Examining two centuries of England and France's history through the close ties, including marriages, rivalries, personal feuds and whole scale wars, between the countries' royal houses, Hanley's book gives a compelling account of how personal fates can shape history.
August 12, 2022
For three hundred years the royal families of England and France were so closely intertwined that their histories are almost impossible to separate. In this book Hanley has tried to look at the political machinations in the context of family relationships and the impact on the two kingdoms. This is an endlessly fascinating book which suffers from the confusions over multiple people with the same name (sometimes even in the same nuclear family). However the writing is spritely and laced with a strong streak of humour which means that it is more than a list of dates and titles.
August 8, 2022
A compelling and fascinating history book that tells how two countries, England and France, shared royal families and how the history was made.
I had a lot of fun and learned a lot. The book is easy to follow and well researched.
Highly recommended.
Many thanks to the publisher and Netgalley for this ARC, all opinions are mine
I had a lot of fun and learned a lot. The book is easy to follow and well researched.
Highly recommended.
Many thanks to the publisher and Netgalley for this ARC, all opinions are mine
August 4, 2022
Thank you to NetGallery for the advance copy of this book. Catherine Hanley has delivered a detailed history of the two families that ruled England and France. I used the scholarship from this book when teaching about Eleanor of Aquitaine for the first time. The maps and detailed family information was really helpful and would be especially useful to those not familiar with the period. This was definitely not light reading as it did get confusing at times but I would definitely recommend for those looking to gain more insight and improve their subject knowledge.
August 21, 2022
3 ⭐️⭐️⭐️
Thank you so much to Yale University Press and NetGalley for an e-arc of this book.
I liked quite a few things about this book, but did have a few issues as well.
I thought the prose was good, it was very readable and accessible.
It became quite repetitive when it was always, as we will see later, in the next chapter etc etc. This type of statement and way of sharing information was definitely overused.
As this is focussing on the relationship between the two counties over a long period it naturally omits or glosses over a lot, therefore I would recommend it to those with an understanding of the time and events/people already.
Thank you so much to Yale University Press and NetGalley for an e-arc of this book.
I liked quite a few things about this book, but did have a few issues as well.
I thought the prose was good, it was very readable and accessible.
It became quite repetitive when it was always, as we will see later, in the next chapter etc etc. This type of statement and way of sharing information was definitely overused.
As this is focussing on the relationship between the two counties over a long period it naturally omits or glosses over a lot, therefore I would recommend it to those with an understanding of the time and events/people already.
November 20, 2022
Definitely an enjoyable and informative read. I loved the way the histories of these two great kingdoms were laid out in parallel. I've studied their individual histories but putting them in relation to each other makes understanding them more meaningful in context of the roles both countries play in the world. They were eternal enemies and cousins, and in a lot of ways, they ebbed and flowed because of each other,
March 27, 2023
I pretty much know my English history backward and forward, but in general, I would only get tantalizing glimpses of what was going on in France when it impinged on events in England and its possessions, and I’ve wished more times than I can count that someone would take a fuller look at how the two royal houses interacted with and influenced one another.
With Two Houses, Two Kingdoms: A History of France and England, 1100–1300, Catherine Hanley has granted my wish. From shortly after the Norman Conquest through the marriage of Edward II and Isabella of France (I hope she will continue past this date in a later book), she provides a lively and detailed account of the relationships between these two powerful families. French kings had very little power in the early period covered, which made the kings of England, whose rule was much more centralized and whose possessions covered vast swathes of France, particularly after Henry II’s marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine and that of his son Geoffrey to the heiress of Brittany, a severe threat to their authority. Starting with the sons of William the Conqueror, therefore, and reaching an apogee with the machinations of Philip (II) Augustus, the kings of France did their best to sow dissension and when possible, pick off various territories controlled by the English. At one point, hard as it is to credit considering the continuing animosity between the two countries, King John’s barons actually invited Philip’s son to replace him, which gives an idea of how much they loathed John. The takeover might have happened, too, if John hadn’t died and left a 9-year-old heir whom the barons felt that they would be able to control.
I found it fascinating how the relationships between the Capetians and the Angevins ebbed and flowed from friendship to outright enmity, with probably every gradation between, and how the “wheel of Fortune,” as they would have seen it, was constantly turning as far as stability and particularly the state of each kingdom’s succession were concerned. At one point, the French succession would be hanging by a thread while the King of England had a quiverful of male descendants; within a decade or so, the situation would be reversed. I could wish there had been more variety in names. Louis and Philip were the main favorites with France, along with a plethora of Blanches, and while not quite as bad, England had more of its share of Henrys, Williams, Matildas, and Eleanors, but of course, that is their fault, not the author’s, and she did a creditable job of distinguishing them and avoiding confusion.
I enjoyed this book enormously and would highly recommend it to anyone who wants to learn how the histories of these “two houses, two kingdoms” are inextricably entwined.
I received a copy of Two Houses, Two Kingdoms from the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.
With Two Houses, Two Kingdoms: A History of France and England, 1100–1300, Catherine Hanley has granted my wish. From shortly after the Norman Conquest through the marriage of Edward II and Isabella of France (I hope she will continue past this date in a later book), she provides a lively and detailed account of the relationships between these two powerful families. French kings had very little power in the early period covered, which made the kings of England, whose rule was much more centralized and whose possessions covered vast swathes of France, particularly after Henry II’s marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine and that of his son Geoffrey to the heiress of Brittany, a severe threat to their authority. Starting with the sons of William the Conqueror, therefore, and reaching an apogee with the machinations of Philip (II) Augustus, the kings of France did their best to sow dissension and when possible, pick off various territories controlled by the English. At one point, hard as it is to credit considering the continuing animosity between the two countries, King John’s barons actually invited Philip’s son to replace him, which gives an idea of how much they loathed John. The takeover might have happened, too, if John hadn’t died and left a 9-year-old heir whom the barons felt that they would be able to control.
I found it fascinating how the relationships between the Capetians and the Angevins ebbed and flowed from friendship to outright enmity, with probably every gradation between, and how the “wheel of Fortune,” as they would have seen it, was constantly turning as far as stability and particularly the state of each kingdom’s succession were concerned. At one point, the French succession would be hanging by a thread while the King of England had a quiverful of male descendants; within a decade or so, the situation would be reversed. I could wish there had been more variety in names. Louis and Philip were the main favorites with France, along with a plethora of Blanches, and while not quite as bad, England had more of its share of Henrys, Williams, Matildas, and Eleanors, but of course, that is their fault, not the author’s, and she did a creditable job of distinguishing them and avoiding confusion.
I enjoyed this book enormously and would highly recommend it to anyone who wants to learn how the histories of these “two houses, two kingdoms” are inextricably entwined.
I received a copy of Two Houses, Two Kingdoms from the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.
November 13, 2023
this is not really a review beyond saying: it is so good to read a master of scholarship who has gone mainstream (insofar as this kind of historical scholarship can be considered mainstream). hanley's writing is approachable and clear, and reading her on the heels of strathern's 'the borgias' really highlights his many weaknesses: mainly his inability to swap between protagonists in a way that feeds into a larger dynastic narrative. the danger for me specifically is this: the period covered in this book is also a period of huge crusade activity and i kept going back and forth on if i wanted to know more (ie go pick up other books that focused on the first three crusades) or i preferred sanity. i still don't have an answer. my one complaint and/or critique is the total and complete absence of jews in the history of these two kingdoms. both edward longshanks and philipe-auguste passed edicts of expulsion, and while one might say that these don't feed into the broader narratives about the antagonism between the capetians and the angevins, but they played huge roles in the economics of both kingdoms. the book covers a three hundred year period, so i am sympathetic to the herculean task hanley set for herself, but. i dont respect this omission. my other complaint is her decision to anglicize everyone's names, but that's a personal complaint. why phillip instead of philipe? this serves no one. certainly, it does not serve me.
also, huge shout out to the epilogue which hanley titled cheekily 'happily ever after' and then proceeds to essentially say: edward longshank's daughter-in-law would go on to become a homophobic girl boss, who hated her husband and his male favorites, and would eventually depose him. incredible narrative work. i hope her next book is about her, lmao.
also, huge shout out to the epilogue which hanley titled cheekily 'happily ever after' and then proceeds to essentially say: edward longshank's daughter-in-law would go on to become a homophobic girl boss, who hated her husband and his male favorites, and would eventually depose him. incredible narrative work. i hope her next book is about her, lmao.
October 26, 2022
I really enjoyed this fascinating book that combined the familiar tales of the royal family of England in the early Middle Ages with the less familiar tales of the royal family of France in the early Middle Ages. You really get a sense of just how many family ties there were between both ruling houses, despite the fact that they were often enemies and at war with each other.
I particularly liked the sections on Eleanor of Aquitaine, King John's reign (and his tenuous relationship with Philip II of France), and the Provence sisters who all married four European kings (including the King of France and King of England)
I particularly liked the sections on Eleanor of Aquitaine, King John's reign (and his tenuous relationship with Philip II of France), and the Provence sisters who all married four European kings (including the King of France and King of England)
September 12, 2024
Wonderfully written. Perfect mix of personal and political/historical which drew me in to a time period that I knew little about and have usually found confusing, off-putting and mostly irrelevent. I think I need to read (actually, listen) to it again to take in more, but I now have a sense of the context and sweep of thehistory, as well as the desire to learn much more about this time and place.
In terms of the content, it's sickening - an endless cavalcade of 'noble' and ecclesiatical pimps, thugs and mafiosi who do little but make life (and death) horrible for the people who have the misfortune to fall under them.
A few weeks before this, I read Shakespeare's King John, and there is a moment (Act II, Scene i) which illustrates this bully racket beautifully. Brief précis:
(The French and English armies face each other down at the city walls of Angers, a possession of the King of England.)
King Philip:
Open up your gates and welcome young Arthur here, the true King of England!
King John:
No, *I* am the King of England, let me in!
Angevin Man, trembling on the walls:
Um, I'm not sure what to do here, uhhhh...
King Philip:
Can you believe the gall of this, questioning us?
King John:
Unbelieveable.
Shall we knit our powers
And lay this Angiers even with the ground,
Then after fight who shall be king of it?
King Philip:
Absolutely. Let's fuck these impudent assholes up.
In terms of the content, it's sickening - an endless cavalcade of 'noble' and ecclesiatical pimps, thugs and mafiosi who do little but make life (and death) horrible for the people who have the misfortune to fall under them.
A few weeks before this, I read Shakespeare's King John, and there is a moment (Act II, Scene i) which illustrates this bully racket beautifully. Brief précis:
(The French and English armies face each other down at the city walls of Angers, a possession of the King of England.)
King Philip:
Open up your gates and welcome young Arthur here, the true King of England!
King John:
No, *I* am the King of England, let me in!
Angevin Man, trembling on the walls:
Um, I'm not sure what to do here, uhhhh...
King Philip:
Can you believe the gall of this, questioning us?
King John:
Unbelieveable.
Shall we knit our powers
And lay this Angiers even with the ground,
Then after fight who shall be king of it?
King Philip:
Absolutely. Let's fuck these impudent assholes up.
November 10, 2023
wow fun!! more fun at the beginning because of my personal interest in how succession works, but very personable and did its best to make confusing things less confusing. very fun history read.
March 9, 2025
Nothing radically out of the norm here except maybe an exceptionally well balanced treatment of all the major players.
September 17, 2025
I enjoyed the first half of the book (1100-1216). The second part, covering 1216 to 1300, wasn't as interesting to me.
Want to read
June 22, 2022ARC received by the Publisher Yale University Press London via Netgalley in exchange for an honest review.
May 16, 2023
Great topic and time to be looking at, covering the early days of the English royal house in all its French connections. Welcome focus as well on many key women characters that have played a central role in the period. Ultimately I found the narrative lacking. Not helped by a time where everyone has the same 3 name, the period and characters don't come alive enough to my taste. It sometimes reads like a chronology of events and more colour would have been welcome. Still, a useful and interesting book if not always the most engaging.
August 30, 2025
Another brilliant synapsis of those crazy -- and sometimes kissin’ -- cousins across the Channel from each other.
August 27, 2025
It’s harder to write good history than it looks. If all you do is narrate a this-happened, then this-happened, you’re basically just listing things. If you argue from an abstract thesis, though, it gets tedious unless you can populate it with anecdotes and narratives.
To do it right, then, you have to find a thesis that enriches your story while also managing to tell that story effectively.
Catherine Hanley does all of that very effectively.
Her thesis here, colorfully put in her title, is that \, for a period of close to a century, the French Capetian royal family and English Plantagenet royal family developed with and against each other. Each attempted to shape the other, whether that meant through diplomacy, military victory, or outright usurpation, and the result is a dual history of France and England that adds dimension to each of what I have experienced as separate stories.
It might seem self-evident that England and France had a core rivalry, but that wasn’t the case before the time of the events Hanley records. For much of the two centuries prior, England – and to a lesser extent France – had to deal with Scandinavian influences. Consider, for instance, the waves of Angle and Saxon attacks and then, of course, the eventual Norman invasion.
It's only four generations later that France begins to assert itself as a contender for English influence since, through William the Conqueror and his immediate successors, the English monarch claimed lands in France.
Hanley tells us, though, that that meant a perpetually vexed relationship. As king in England – a position William I, William II, Stephen, and Henry I understood as spanning the English Channel – they ruled with central authority. In France, though, they were essentially barons under another king. That meant they had a degree of autonomy but were still expected to pay homage.
Once the Capetians succeeded to the throne, they worked to reclaim Angevin/Plantagenet lands in French territory. Each dynasty looked to establish heirs that could lead its troops into battle and hold the monarchy in his own person.
For a time, that looked good for Henry II in England with his five strong sons. But then two died young, Richard the Lion-Hearted gave up much of his local ambition for the Crusades (and may have been gay in a way that kept him from producing an heir), Eustace settled for a smaller portion, and John turned out to be perhaps the worst king in England’s history.
Hanley does a great job of telling that story – one that many of us know from Shakespeare’s history plays – in a fresh way. I understand them as characters in ways I didn’t before, and I’m not sure I like any of them…except the poor ones who got killed while still young.
Meanwhile, across the Channel, the Capetians nearly died out before Phillip managed to grow from a child king into one of the great leaders of the country. Through him and his son Louis, the French found ways to assert themselves – even to the fascinating point when, fed up with John, mutinying English barons backed Louis to be the English king.
Along the way there are all sorts of intermarriages with the effect that John’s son Henry had only one “English” great-grandparent.
But, in the course of the many intertwining stories, we see a proto-nationalism emerging. What begins as a rivalry between dynastic houses becomes in striking ways a conflict that helps to define the two as nations in something of our modern sense of the concept.
This is somehow never boring – with the occasional battle told in detail but then the skill to move quickly through dense material – and it offers a compelling thesis.
Good history is harder to write than it seems. Hanley shows us how it’s done.
To do it right, then, you have to find a thesis that enriches your story while also managing to tell that story effectively.
Catherine Hanley does all of that very effectively.
Her thesis here, colorfully put in her title, is that \, for a period of close to a century, the French Capetian royal family and English Plantagenet royal family developed with and against each other. Each attempted to shape the other, whether that meant through diplomacy, military victory, or outright usurpation, and the result is a dual history of France and England that adds dimension to each of what I have experienced as separate stories.
It might seem self-evident that England and France had a core rivalry, but that wasn’t the case before the time of the events Hanley records. For much of the two centuries prior, England – and to a lesser extent France – had to deal with Scandinavian influences. Consider, for instance, the waves of Angle and Saxon attacks and then, of course, the eventual Norman invasion.
It's only four generations later that France begins to assert itself as a contender for English influence since, through William the Conqueror and his immediate successors, the English monarch claimed lands in France.
Hanley tells us, though, that that meant a perpetually vexed relationship. As king in England – a position William I, William II, Stephen, and Henry I understood as spanning the English Channel – they ruled with central authority. In France, though, they were essentially barons under another king. That meant they had a degree of autonomy but were still expected to pay homage.
Once the Capetians succeeded to the throne, they worked to reclaim Angevin/Plantagenet lands in French territory. Each dynasty looked to establish heirs that could lead its troops into battle and hold the monarchy in his own person.
For a time, that looked good for Henry II in England with his five strong sons. But then two died young, Richard the Lion-Hearted gave up much of his local ambition for the Crusades (and may have been gay in a way that kept him from producing an heir), Eustace settled for a smaller portion, and John turned out to be perhaps the worst king in England’s history.
Hanley does a great job of telling that story – one that many of us know from Shakespeare’s history plays – in a fresh way. I understand them as characters in ways I didn’t before, and I’m not sure I like any of them…except the poor ones who got killed while still young.
Meanwhile, across the Channel, the Capetians nearly died out before Phillip managed to grow from a child king into one of the great leaders of the country. Through him and his son Louis, the French found ways to assert themselves – even to the fascinating point when, fed up with John, mutinying English barons backed Louis to be the English king.
Along the way there are all sorts of intermarriages with the effect that John’s son Henry had only one “English” great-grandparent.
But, in the course of the many intertwining stories, we see a proto-nationalism emerging. What begins as a rivalry between dynastic houses becomes in striking ways a conflict that helps to define the two as nations in something of our modern sense of the concept.
This is somehow never boring – with the occasional battle told in detail but then the skill to move quickly through dense material – and it offers a compelling thesis.
Good history is harder to write than it seems. Hanley shows us how it’s done.
November 10, 2022
As a child growing up in the United Kingdom, I was taught that William of Normandy (or “The Conqueror” or other derogatory describer) became England’s ruler in 1066 and heads the list of that country’s rulers. This was after he won the Battle of Hastings, which didn’t actually take place at Hastings but at a location several miles north. We came to associate Normandy as just a region of France, just as one might say Yorkshire is a region of England. What we forget is that Normandy was far more than that. It was a powerful location in its own right, part of a loose collection of feudal municipalities. Two Houses, Two Kingdoms is not only about the rivalry between two families in different parts of France; it is also about the creation of the centralized France we know today.
As other reviewers have stated, this is an “accessible chronicle” for all, despite it being almost 500 pages. I found it remarkably easy to read, with one exception which is not the fault of the author. I often state one way we can know the truth of a tale is by the number of repetitive names. (A fiction author will often go to great lengths to ensure their characters have unique names.) There’s a massive list of names at the start of the book. Some are distinctive, such as “Louis the Fat.” But thanks to naming traditions we end up with many people, in both England and France, with the same name or similar (Henry and Henri, for example). As Hanley points out, every king of France from 1060 to 1316 was either a Louis or a Philip. Women aren’t exempt from this confusion either. Henry I had four daughters, all named Matilda. Another dignitary gave each of his four daughters the first name of Mary.
Daughters seemed to have suffered the most in two hundred years of rivalry and upheaval. Often seen as little more than pawns in their fathers’ machinations, they were often betrothed to men much older than themselves as soon as they could crawl. Not all got to marry the man to whom they’d been betrothed at that time. Often the man died, or her father switched allegiances. We read the sad tale of Alys, daughter of Louis VII, who was sent to England at the age of eight as part of a contract that would see her married to Richard I. She was 30, and they were still officially engaged when he married someone else. Hanley repeatedly observes that we have little information about how the women felt regarding their positions and it’s due to their relative unimportance in the world back then. Their thoughts simply didn’t matter in a patriarchal society.
Two Houses, Two Kingdoms is a fascinating albeit a very detailed look at the two most important families of England and France, as well as their allies and enemies. These were people who lived full lives, and the author notes early on that the book only focuses on the dealings each family had with the other. I’ll add that although the first 70 per cent of the book is narrative, it also includes notes for each chapter with references to material on connected subjects. You’ll also find additional information and author opinions regarding some of the events described within the main text. Lastly, there are lists of primary and secondary sources, encyclopedias, and online sources, as well as an extensive index.
Disclaimer: Although I received an electronic Advance Uncorrected Proof of this book from the publisher, the opinions above are my own.
As other reviewers have stated, this is an “accessible chronicle” for all, despite it being almost 500 pages. I found it remarkably easy to read, with one exception which is not the fault of the author. I often state one way we can know the truth of a tale is by the number of repetitive names. (A fiction author will often go to great lengths to ensure their characters have unique names.) There’s a massive list of names at the start of the book. Some are distinctive, such as “Louis the Fat.” But thanks to naming traditions we end up with many people, in both England and France, with the same name or similar (Henry and Henri, for example). As Hanley points out, every king of France from 1060 to 1316 was either a Louis or a Philip. Women aren’t exempt from this confusion either. Henry I had four daughters, all named Matilda. Another dignitary gave each of his four daughters the first name of Mary.
Daughters seemed to have suffered the most in two hundred years of rivalry and upheaval. Often seen as little more than pawns in their fathers’ machinations, they were often betrothed to men much older than themselves as soon as they could crawl. Not all got to marry the man to whom they’d been betrothed at that time. Often the man died, or her father switched allegiances. We read the sad tale of Alys, daughter of Louis VII, who was sent to England at the age of eight as part of a contract that would see her married to Richard I. She was 30, and they were still officially engaged when he married someone else. Hanley repeatedly observes that we have little information about how the women felt regarding their positions and it’s due to their relative unimportance in the world back then. Their thoughts simply didn’t matter in a patriarchal society.
Two Houses, Two Kingdoms is a fascinating albeit a very detailed look at the two most important families of England and France, as well as their allies and enemies. These were people who lived full lives, and the author notes early on that the book only focuses on the dealings each family had with the other. I’ll add that although the first 70 per cent of the book is narrative, it also includes notes for each chapter with references to material on connected subjects. You’ll also find additional information and author opinions regarding some of the events described within the main text. Lastly, there are lists of primary and secondary sources, encyclopedias, and online sources, as well as an extensive index.
Disclaimer: Although I received an electronic Advance Uncorrected Proof of this book from the publisher, the opinions above are my own.
April 5, 2025
At first I thought 1100-1300 were too arbitrary a time frame, but it began to make more sense as the book progressed. Really, the book is a prologue to the Hundred Years War (1337-1453). The event which began to bring England and France into conflict was the Norman Conquest of 1066. For the next 150 years, the Kings of England, who were also Dukes of Normandy, were expected to be obedient vassals to the King of France. Well, no king likes to submit to another king, especially not as when, during the reigns of Henry II, Richard I, and John, the King of England dominated more of France than the French king did. But John dropped the ball, Philip II and his son Louis VIII intercepted it and ran it almost clear to the other end of the field. Henry III held onto England and the coastal strip of Gascony almost by the skin of his teeth. The concessions and marriage ties between Henry III and Louix IX, rather than bringing the two kingdoms together, set the kingdoms on a collision course in the lifetimes of their grandchildren and great-grandchildren.
It is often said that national identity did not exist in the middle ages, rather people identified with royal titles and houses. But this period, 1100-1300 sees a real Anglo-Norman identity forming in England, much more unified than in France. Previously, Normans and English were two separate races, but became increasingly mixed. As bad as King John was (and if half of what is said about him is true, then he was a truly rotten man), it was in his reign that English identity took off. His predecessors were known as merely rex Anglorum "King of the English," rather than Rex Angli, King of England. Perhaps this is connected with John's losing so much territory in France, as he was England's first full-time resident king since the Conquest.
The female author is careful to give the woman's perspective of all these events, as far as it can be construed from the less than comprehensive chronicles of the time. The narrative is filled with many remarkable royal women. Some, like Isabella of Hainault and Ingeborg of Denmark used an Esther-like equanimity to overcome the cruelty of their husbands. Others, like Matilda, Eleanor of Aquitaine, and Constance of Britanny, used the power they wielded in their own right to influence politics and sway the destinies of mighty kingdoms.
I gained context for the English history with which I was already familiar, and learned much about French history in this time period. I would recommend especially in order to gain context for the Hundred Years War.
It is often said that national identity did not exist in the middle ages, rather people identified with royal titles and houses. But this period, 1100-1300 sees a real Anglo-Norman identity forming in England, much more unified than in France. Previously, Normans and English were two separate races, but became increasingly mixed. As bad as King John was (and if half of what is said about him is true, then he was a truly rotten man), it was in his reign that English identity took off. His predecessors were known as merely rex Anglorum "King of the English," rather than Rex Angli, King of England. Perhaps this is connected with John's losing so much territory in France, as he was England's first full-time resident king since the Conquest.
The female author is careful to give the woman's perspective of all these events, as far as it can be construed from the less than comprehensive chronicles of the time. The narrative is filled with many remarkable royal women. Some, like Isabella of Hainault and Ingeborg of Denmark used an Esther-like equanimity to overcome the cruelty of their husbands. Others, like Matilda, Eleanor of Aquitaine, and Constance of Britanny, used the power they wielded in their own right to influence politics and sway the destinies of mighty kingdoms.
I gained context for the English history with which I was already familiar, and learned much about French history in this time period. I would recommend especially in order to gain context for the Hundred Years War.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 77 reviews