The Queen and the Mistress: The Women of Edward III by Gemma Hollman focuses on Queen Philippa, the wife of Edward for over three decades, and Alice Perrers, a lady who served Philippa who became Edward's companion during Philippa's decline and then for several years after her death unto his own passing.
This book has left me with conflicting feelings. It's very well-researched, and I'm tickled whenever I can see research drawn on from other books, like The Perfect King, which I just finished quite recently and a big reason why I chose this book to read when I did. The problem is that I went into this wishing to know more about both the women, but particularly Philippa. I wished to get a deeper sense of the woman who apparently made a love match with a king, which was definitely no certain thing, and who held his attention for almost the entirety of their marriage, another trait not guaranteed to the spouses of kings. Upon finishing this book, I feel that wish has been granted with Alice, but not so much with Philippa.
The book is split basically in half between the two women, but it somehow feels like it's a very cursory glance at Philippa. I thought I would get a better reckoning of her than I did with The Perfect King, which was obviously focused on Edward. She spent all her time falling pregnant in that book, and I thought it would be better in this one, but it wasn't to a great degree. I liked to hear more about her intercessions on the behalf of women and children, sparing them from death for minor crimes, and I enjoyed hearing about her finery, but it seemed most of the pages were like "Philippa was heavily pregnant". I guess I was expecting letters or documents or something.
The Alice portion is better at this than the Philippa. She is better fleshed out, and I get a greater sense of her as a woman, although at the beginning of her portion was a lot of "...and she probably..." "...and her family may have..." which I don't especially like in historical tracts but can kind of forgive with understanding as to the limited sources, especially for women. But there, too, I have a massive bone to pick about the Alice portion, and it's in the simply enormous amount of sympathy the author gives to her.
I understand that it was very difficult for women at the time, and they had basically little to no agency of their own, and the limitations become starker the further down the line that the women were descended in terms of class. I think, however, that in trying to paint a more charitable view of Alice Perrers, the author makes a massive overcorrection. She comes off as very, very, very, very, VERY greedy. She wants to provide for her children--fine. She wants to keep herself in security--OK. She had fifty-six manors bestowed upon her by Edward! She had countless clothing and garments bequeathed to her. She was on the level to his daughter in terms of the finery she received. She had thousands and thousands and thousands of litres of wine, which was another way she could make income. She was placed as guardian to a very wealthy child, who she married to her son to secure him an even higher foothold. She took properties from Edward's children, which they weren't thrilled about. Whenever she was banished, and then allowed back at court when they believed Edward to be dying, instead of, say, I don't know, quitting while she was ahead, she went right back into angling for pardons and helping friends get appointments while continuing to snatch things up left and right. It's just funny that the whole chaos of Edward's father was how he spoiled and showered items on his (male) favourites, and then Edward turns around and does basically the same thing.
You also have to question the physical and mental stability of Edward at the time; it's argued by many historians that he had probably suffered at least one stroke before his death, and possibly multiple ones. He's frail and fading; how could she not be taking advantage of him, whether or not she had loved him or continued to love him even while scheming to both enrich her holdings while protecting herself for when he soon died? The fact that she married either right after he died or before in a last-ditch effort to try to keep her land with her should she come before Parliament certainly speaks to that.
Anyway. I guess what I'm saying is I was left a little disappointed with the Philippa section but liked her better as a person, and I was more impressed with the Alice Perrers section but came off liking her even less than I had going into it. I can grant that women struggled at the time, but that doesn't mean she wasn't greedy.
Also side note: there was mention about how neither woman was wholly good or bad. The assertion, therefore, that Philippa wasn't perfect because she was in debt means basically nothing. In the text it's shown that she was constantly struggling to maintain her household as she was given property that did not generate enough income to fund the family that seemed to grow with every passing year, and Philippa often kept her children with her, which means she would have to budget for their staffs. Not only that, but Edward LOVED to throw money around for bejewelled clothing he would only wear once to massive, lavish tournaments. He spared no expense with cloths for the garments and the like; Philippa was supposed to be a symbol of his leadership and the greatness into which he was leading England. She could hardly go around in plain clothes while he's glittering like the sun next to her. I think she probably did the best that she could with what was given to her, especially when she had to make do with less at one point than what knights earned yearly.