Well, Tudor enthusiasts... after what has been a lengthy departure from book reviews and the general updating/maintenance of this website (oops), I am making a pretty remarkable comeback today. And I don't say that in any way to pump my own tires - in fact, this comeback has nothing to do with me, and everything to do with the absolutely fantastic book that was recently sent to me by the very kind Isabella Narvaez of Penguin Random House. It's true - in recent years, I've become quite picky about the book review requests I receive. I simply don't have the time that I used to, and I know that I can't say yes to everything. But when I received an email about Jodi Picoult's (relatively) new publication about Emilia Bassano, the 16th-century female poet who has been theorized as a potential writer of William Shakespeare's plays... I truly couldn't resist. Not only is Jodi a household name in fiction (and anything she writes is sure to be fabulous), but this is a topic that I have spent very little time pondering over the course of my life, and throughout my obsession with sixteenth-century England. Of course, I know that this theory has been touted (by some, at least) - that Shakespeare himself did not pen the works that he's subsequently become so insanely famous for.
But had I ever really considered the possibility? No.
Did I know anything about any of the figures from history who have been presumed to have helped him with his writing (or written the works in their entirety without his input at all)? Again, no.
​So I was intrigued. I was more than intrigued, rather - I was ecstatic at the opportunity. And I jumped into this book with gusto. Now, five minutes after I've finished reading, I can hardly contain my enthusiasm and my NEED to shout about this book from the rooftops. A remarkable comeback to book reviewing, indeed. So, let's get into it. 

Emilia Bassano (who was known as Emilia Lanier in later life), lived from 1569 to 1645 and is, indeed, on the short list of possible writers of Shakespeare's works. And YES, before you get overly-defensive of William Shakespeare's authorship (after all, there are many who refuse to acknowledge the possibility that he didn't actually write everything he is given credit for...), this is a well-known theoretical perspective, even if it isn't all that popular. Many historians over the centuries have doubted Shakespeare's actual authorship and placed a number of potential names on the short list - to include Christopher Marlowe, the Earl of Oxford, Francis Bacon, and Mary Sidney Herbert. Well, Jodi Picoult adds her own flavor to the mix here - and no, she's not the first one to suggest Emilia's involvement, though she is, perhaps, the first to write such a well thought-out, meticulously-researched storyline that weaves it all together so nicely. 
The novel is, in my mind, perfect. It is so wonderfully thought-provoking that I wonder how much I can actually write here in this post without ruining some of the best elements of the story. What I can say is that there is a dual timeline story happening here, which is always a favorite style of mine. We get to visit Emilia in the late sixteenth-to-seventeenth centuries, as well as her distant relative in the future, Melina Green. Melina is a struggling playwright in New York City, very well aware of the disadvantage that she has in the industry as a woman (unknowingly, at first, mirroring the very same struggle recognized by Emilia). Once she learns that her very distant relative was Emilia Bassano - also a poet and possible playwright, and very possibly the writer of many of Shakespeare's plays - Melina can't help but write about her... and what happens next becomes uncannily similar to the storyline woven by Picoult for Emilia in the sixteenth century. I couldn't possibly give it away... all I can say is that the parallels are fabulous. Both characters are wonderfully complex and their stories had me so completely captivated.

This is so much more than a fun flit between Tudor England and the modern day. It's so much more than getting to know some of the most notable names of Elizabethan England - like Shakespeare, Marlowe, and Jonson. It's more than a parallel contrast of women struggling to let their voices - and their names - be known in a male-dominated industry. It is all of that (and all of that is brilliant)... but it is also a much deeper story of inequality - which goes beyond mere gender in this novel - as well as forbidden, unexpected love, unlikely allies, uneasy partnerships, and the determination to fight tooth and nail for survival and authenticity. It is a beautiful story of friendship between both time periods, of earth-shattering loss and hardship, and certainly of overcoming insurmountable odds. The strength shown by both female leads in this book - but most notably by Emilia - was both staggering and inspiring. I felt like I got to know her so well between these pages, that by the very end I wasn't ready to let her go. This was one of those books that grabs you tightly and pulls you deep within its pages, embedding you into the story so much that you can hear and smell Tudor England all around you. You get to know Emilia (and Kit, and Southampton, and Hunsdon, and Bess...) with such an intimate comfort that it hurts to close the book at the end. That is masterful storytelling... to say nothing of the fact that it leaves you saying, "What if?"
And to that point - though I haven't given anything about this story away (because I simply cannot) - one can absolutely not finish this book without also reading the incredible Author's Note. Jodi so beautifully wraps up her thought process, which is so much more intricate and complex than I ever could have imagined while reading. (Nearly) every single detail of Emilia's fictional life as it is written in this book comes from real historical fact, and is evidence-based from Jodi's own first-hand research that she conducted in London. Entire scenes that were written in the book, which felt like they were beautifully and imaginatively woven from Jodi alone, were actually inspired by real-life events and tied back beautifully to the historical record. I was absolutely blown away to learn just how much of the book was true - or at least heavily influenced by what was. 
This is historical fiction done right.
This is historical fiction that makes you scratch your head and appreciate the work that went into crafting the story.
​It is more than a simple imagining of Emilia's life - it is so ardently backed by fact that the reader is hard-pressed to question whether it all isn't just completely true. 

If you're someone who struggles to believe that Shakespeare didn't write his own plays - that his name might have become a front for another talented writer, or, as Jodi also posits in her Author's Note, perhaps a whole group of collaborative writers - I get it. I've never really stopped to question this particular subject, but I'll say that this book really got me thinking. It got me pausing and reflecting on possibilities - and becoming a little bit convinced by what Jodi herself has discovered. Martin Droeshout's contemporary engraving of Shakespeare became enough to make me question what his own companions might have known back then that we do not know now (and if you don't know what I'm referring to, you'll just have to read the novel). And if nothing else - even if it's just a silly theory, if Shakespeare did, in fact, write all of his own work - this is one of the things that historians are meant to do. They're meant to make us think, to question, to debate. And after reading this novel and all the effort and research that went into it, I feel confident placing Jodi Picoult firmly in the 'historian' camp. She's earned it with this one. Whatever you think of the Shakespeare debate, I urge you to give this book a fair shake and see if it doesn't make you ponder... even just a little. Or if, at the very least, it doesn't make you fall in love with Emilia and the 'what ifs' of her story.
And if it isn't the Shakespeare question that'll pull you into the book, maybe it's love. Sure, this is a rocky romance story to say the least (and at times, it's downright sad), but I promise that if you haven't already fallen in love with Emilia and her forbidden love interest in the novel, the Earl of Southampton by the time you've finished reading, then you'll really be swooning when you finish the author's note. All I can say is... wow. 
And if that isn't a tease that should get you racing to buy this book for yourselves, I don't know what is. 

Better yet, though, you can win a copy of By Any Other Name for yourself simply be entering my giveaway on Instagram! Head to the official giveaway post on Instagram, where you can follow three simple steps for a chance to win (by 11:59 pm on January 31st!): 

1. Follow my profile on Instagram (@thetudorenthusiast),
2. Leave a comment on the giveaway post, and
3. Tag a friend!

By doing so, you will have entered for a chance to win what is - in my humble opinion - one of the best historical fiction novels I've ever read. I couldn't be more delighted to share this novel with all of my readers, and to give one lucky person the chance to win a copy for themselves. 
I'll draw one random winner on Sunday, February 1st. 

I'm excited to be today's stop in Tony Riches's virtual blog post with Historical Fiction Virtual Book Tours - this time featuring a review of the third and final installment in his Brandon Trilogy. "Katherine: Tudor Duchess" centers on Charles Brandon's third wife, Katherine Willoughby, and picks up with the death of his second wife, Princess Mary (Henry VIII's sister). If you missed my previous reviews of "Mary: Tudor Princess" and "Brandon: Tudor Knight", check them out! 
Moving forward to Katherine's story, here's the back-cover blurb for this novel: 

She stands up for what she believes in... but such courage has consequences.
Attractive, wealthy and influential, Katherine Willoughby is one of the most unusual ladies of the Tudor court. A favourite of King Henry VIII, Katherine knows all his six wives, his daughters Mary and Elizabeth, and his son Edward, as well as being related by marriage to Lady Jane Grey. 
When her father dies, Katherine becomes the ward of Tudor knight, Sir Charles Brandon. Her Spanish mother, Maria de Salinas, is Queen Catherine of Aragon's lady in waiting, so it is a challenging time for them all when King Henry marries the enigmatic Anne Boleyn. 
Follwoing Anne's dramatic downfall, Katherine marries Charles Brandon, and becomes Duchess of Suffolk at the age of fourteen. After the short reign of young Catherine Howard, and the tragic death of Jane Seymour, Katherine and Brandon are chosen to welcome Anna of Cleves as she arrives in England. 
When the royal marriage is annulled, Katherine's good friend, Catherine Parr becomes the king's sixth wife, and they work to promote religious reform. Katherine's young sons are tutored with the future king, Prince Edward, but when Edward dies his Catholic sister Mary is crowned queen. Katherine's Protestant faith puts her family in great danger - from which there seems no escape. 
Katherine's remarkable true story continues the epic tale of the rise of the Tudors, which began with the best-selling Tudor trilogy and concludes with the reign of Queen Elizabeth I.

This novel spans a remarkable length of time, beginning with Katherine joining the Brandon household as Charles's ward when she's a young teenager, and ending several decades later when Mary I has taken the throne of England. In that time, Henry VIII has exhausted all six of his wives, his reign has passed into the hands of Edward VI (who's also died), and the country has been through more political and religious turmoil than one can ever expect to face in a lifetime. Katherine's story is one of resilience, bravery, and wit. She's a formidable woman, although we meet her in her youth, and she grows to be a very impressive Tudor figure in her own right. 
I will admit - her relationship with Charles Brandon is not one of my favorites from the period. Katherine (age fourteen) married the duke when he was nearly fifty years old, and that just doesn't resonate with me - though I know it was absolutely normal for the time. Still, it's difficult for me to get wrapped up in a 'love' story centered around these two, though there's absolutely nothing wrong with the way the relationship was written by Riches. 
Overall, this concludes the Brandon Trilogy really nicely. I enjoyed Katherine's story just as much as the previous two, and I can highly recommend the entire series to all readers of Tudor fiction! If you haven't already, purchase this novel at the link below and connect with Tony on one of his social media platforms!

• Purchase the novel at Amazon HERE
• Connect with Tony on Twitter (@tonyriches) / Instagram (@tonyriches.author) / Facebook (Tony Riches Author)

I'm very happy to be featuring "Brandon: Tudor Knight" by Tony Riches on my blog today, and honored to be today's stop in his virtual book tour with Historical Fiction Virtual Book Tours. 
I previously wrote a review of the first in this Brandon Trilogy, "Mary: Tudor Princess" (review here), and this second installment details a similar story to the first, but from the perspective of Mary's second husband, Charles Brandon. For anyone unfamiliar, here's the back cover blurb: 

Handsome, charismatic and a champion jouster, Sir Charles Brandon is the epitome of a Tudor Knight. A favourite of King Henry VIII, Brandon has a secret. He has fallen in love with Henry's sister, Mary Tudor, the beautiful widowed Queen of France, and risks everything to marry her without the king's consent. 
Brandon becomes Duke of Suffolk, but his loyalty is tested fighting Henry's wars in France. Mary's public support for Queen Catherine of Aragon brings Brandon into dangerous conflict with the ambitious Boleyn family and the king's new right-hand man, Thomas Cromwell. 
Torn between duty to his family and loyalty to the king, Brandon faces an impossible decision: can he accept Anne Boleyn as his new queen?

This book moves back in time to Charles's younger years as a twenty-one year old, as he's coming into royal service. We see his relationship with Henry Tudor, his escapades at court, and the fact that he is always incurring debt and lacking funds. He's married to Anne Browne, but he's always had his eye on the king's younger sister, Princess Mary. If you've read "Mary: Tudor Princess," then you already know the course of this story - Charles's elicit and secret wedding with Mary in France upon her royal husband's death in 1515, and the subsequent drama that unfolded upon returning to England and having King Henry learn about what had been done behind his back. Now we see the love story played out through Charles's eyes.
In addition to the romance and the 'forbidden' nature of their union, we see the struggles in their relationship. Mary is loyal to Henry's first queen, Catherine of Aragon, and bitterly against the impending rise of her lady-in-waiting, Anne Boleyn as the 1520s progress. Because of the nature of her relationship with the 'true queen,' Brandon's political career is thrown into turmoil as his own friendship with the Boleyns grows tense. He wants to support his friend, King Henry, and by association his new choice in bride. But he walks a fine balance between loyalty to his wife and loyalty to the king, and as it becomes ever more clear that Catherine of Aragon is to be ousted from court, Charles's allegiance is truly put to the test. 
Some of this novel certainly matched the scenes of the first novel, which is to be expected - as many aspects are essentially the same story, told from two differing perspectives. I thoroughly enjoyed this story centered around Charles Brandon, his court career, and his romantic relationship with Princess Mary. I'm anxious to move onto the third in this series - "Katherine: Tudor Duchess," which focuses on Charles's third wife following Mary's death. 

Stay tuned for another review of that third and final novel in the Brandon Trilogy! And if you haven't already, connect with Tony Riches on social media and purchase his books to enjoy for yourself.

• Purchase the novel at Amazon HERE
• Connect with Tony on Twitter (@tonyriches) / Instagram (@tonyriches.author) / Facebook (Tony Riches Author)

This portrait - held in both the Royal Collection and the Buccleuch Collection - has long been considered to depict the seventeen year-old Catherine, though its title 'Portrait of a Lady, perhaps Catherine Howard' indicates that there can be some question as to the sitter's identity. The Royal Collection's version of the portrait states the following in its notes, regarding the identity:

The most compelling piece of evidence that the Royal Collection suggests for this long-assumed identity is the large ruby, emerald, and pearl jewel that features at the center of the sitter's necklace. This particular jewel, the Royal Collection points out, also features in the one confirmed contemporary portrait of Henry VIII's third queen, Jane Seymour: 

The fact that both women are wearing the same exact jewel has indicated to historians through the years that the piece was likely one of many in the queen's jewelry collection - which, as we know, would have been transferred from queen-to-queen, its various pieces worn by (potentially) all of Henry's six wives. However, as the Royal Collection also notes, Jane Seymour was known to give away items in her jewelry collection - particularly to the ladies who served in her household. One such name that has come up as another possible identity in the 'Catherine' portrait is that of Lady Mary Brandon, Baroness Monteagle, who served Queen Jane and was a known recipient of the latter's gifts of favor.

But while the Royal Collection description states that this drawing above (on display in the Royal Library of Windsor Castle) bears 'some resemblance' to the sitter in the 'Catherine' portrait... I have to say, I disagree - especially when we take a look at Franny Moyle's theory and her argument that the original portrait actually depicts none other than Henry VIII's fourth wife, Anne of Cleves. 
Anne of Cleves came to England around 1 January 1540, and when she met Henry VIII in Dover, it was the first time the two were seeing each other in person. Months prior, as negotiations for the marriage were underway, Henry sent his personal painter, Hans Holbein the Younger, to Anne's home country of Germany to paint the young woman's likeness (as well as her sister's). And because this portrait became so critical to our understanding of Henry VIII's ultimate disappointment in his fourth wife's appearance, it is undisputed that the sitter in this miniature from 1539 is, in fact, Anne of Cleves: 

We, Tudor enthusiasts, know that Henry VIII later believed this portrait of Anne to have been a seriously disappointing misrepresentation. However, there's no evidence that Holbein flattered Anne's appearance with this miniature (and Henry VIII 's dissatisfaction with Anne's looks is the only reported contemporary criticism). Still, we know without a doubt that this portrait represents Anne, who did soon after go on to become Henry's fourth queen. She only held this position for around six months, though, and was swiftly replaced by the younger (and much more beautiful, to Henry VIII's mind) Catherine Howard. 
Now, here's where Moyle's theory gets interesting. While the original 'Catherine' portrait by Holbein is dated 1540 - and therefore rightly dated for Catherine Howard's mid-summer marriage to Henry, we must remember that Anne of Cleves was also Henry's queen in 1540. That eye-catching jewel worn round the neck of the portrait's sitter is just as likely to have been in Anne's collection as Queen of England as it would later have been in Catherine's (if we are to assume that Jane Seymour did not actually gift the jewel to Lady Monteagle, as I would argue against). 
In addition to this, the Royal Collection's description of the 'Catherine' portrait indicates that it is 'Watercolour on vellum laid on playing card (the four of diamonds)'. For clarification, this means that a four of diamonds playing card is used as the backing of the portrait miniature, and as Moyle points out, this detail is particularly striking. Couldn't this suggest that Holbein was making reference to Henry VIII's fourth wife by using the four of diamonds for the portrait? While this is a tantalizing theory, several historians have remained unconvinced that the playing card plays any real significant role here, as another portrait of Holbein's - this time depicting Jane Small - is backed by a five of diamonds. There are only so many numbers and faces of playing cards with which to use for this purpose, so it's entirely possible that the four of diamonds used in this case was random and insignificant. However, London Times writer, Laura Freeman has argued that Holbein was notorious for his 'passion for symbols and visual puns,' citing two examples of playing cards and their significance to portraits of Thomas Cromwell and Lady Audley. Given this, we might want to acknowledge the possibility of some meaning behind even Jane Small's five of diamonds. What that might have been is impossible to say, but it's worth considering that the four of diamonds on the 'Catherine' portrait might well have meant something after all. And I have to admit, I'm intrigued by the possibility.

While we primarily think of Anne of Cleves as dressing in her Germanic garb, as depicted in the 1539 portrait, it's important for us to consider that she would have adapted her style to be decidedly more English upon marrying Henry VIII. We know that she did this, because chronicler Edward Hall confirms it, writing that she was 'apparelled after the English fashion, with a French hood.' The sitter in the portrait in question does indeed look every inch an English woman - complete with the fashionable French hood. It can, therefore, (and should) be considered that there would have been plenty of time during the first half of 1540 for Henry's new queen to sit for a portrait with Holbein, dressed in the English style. 
However, it's worth noting (if we're referencing Hall) that he also made mention of her 'fair, yellow, and long' hair, when describing her appearance on her wedding day. As is pretty obvious, this sitter does not have blonde hair, but rather pretty rich brunette. Admittedly, the Royal Collection's version shows lighter-colored hair, but it still appears more brown than yellow. A close comparison between the portrait in question versus other popular portraits from the period would better-indicate the intended hair color (for example, I would argue that this portrait's hair is decidedly blonder than the hair in Anne Boleyn's portrait, which is quite clearly dark brown). But without the hair having been painted as an obvious gold or yellow, the interpretation of its color remains largely subjective. Some might argue that it's a dark blonde, or maybe that Hall erroneously recorded it as yellow, when in reality her hair was light brown. Who's to know for sure? It's another element to consider when contemplating this new theory. 

But disregarding all of these other arguments for the moment - the jewel, the playing cards, Hall's Chronicle, the hair color, the attire, the year, etc. - what's most interesting to me is the uncanny resemblance between the women (or woman) sitting in the 1540 portrait and the 1539 portrait. I have to admit, when closely comparing the two, my eye is immediately drawn to the shape of the eyes and the distinctly hooded appearance of those upper lids. In both portraits, there's a bit of a sleepy quality to the eye shape - one that differs from other Tudor women's portraits. Looking at them side-by-side, I see an undeniable similarity between the two, which leads me to examine the eyebrows (different from the pencil-thinness of the other wives) and lips as well. All of these features appear so strikingly similar that I can easily see the argument that the two portraits depict the same woman. The expressions are so eerily parallel that it makes me wonder how (or if) anyone has ever suggested this theory before. 
Of course, all of this is up to interpretation. There are certainly thought-provoking points brought up by Moyle to make us consider the possibility of the 1540 portrait depicting Anne of Cleves, but equally plenty of reason to question this theory and consider its likelihood that it represents Catherine Howard. To summarize: the jewel worn around the woman's neck could very well have belonged to both queens in 1540, and they both likely dressed in the English style illustrated in the portrait. The playing card used as the miniature's backing might have been a fluke, or it could have been another of Holbein's pointed symbolic references. The hair color might be misrepresented in either Holbein's painting or Hall's Chronicle, and the similar facial features between the confirmed portrait of Anne of Cleves and the portrait in question might indicate either the same sitter, or an unintentional coincidence. We'll never know the answer for sure, but isn't it a fascinating question to ponder? As for me, I have to admit I'm really intrigued by the theory, and I personally find myself somewhat convinced that the 1540 portrait shows a newly-Anglicized Queen Anne of Cleves.
If that is true, then we truly have no confirmed contemporary portrait of Henry's fifth queen, Catherine Howard (as the other painting that is often attributed to her has also been argued to depict a member of the Cromwell family). But who knows? As this new theory proves, we should never get too comfortable with unconfirmed sixteenth-century portraiture. We might yet find yet another possible painting of Catherine Howard in the future, and we can dive into that debate and consideration with just as much enthusiasm and intrigue as this one.
​

References: 

• Hall, Edward, 'Hall's Chronicle; Containing the History of England, During the Reign of Henry the Fourth and the Succeeding Monarchs', pp. 836-7.
• Hui, Roland, 'Anne of Cleves of Catherine Howard' (Tudor Faces: Observations and Musings on Tudor Portraiture and Personalities), 3 May 2021.
• 'Portrait of a Lady, perhaps Katherine Howard (1520-1542), c. 1540' (Royal Collection Trust)
• Ridgway, Claire, 'Hans Holbein's Portrait of Queen Catherine Howard? By Roland Hui' (Tudor Society), 20 August 2021.
• Solly, Meilan, 'Presumed Portrait of Catherine Howard May Actually Depict Anne of Cleves' (Smithsonian Magazine), 6 May 2021.

First of all, I'd like to point out that - while I'm incredibly grateful and excited to be writing this book - doing so outside of the UK is not easy. There are many primary sources that I would absolutely love to have access to - located in the British Library, the Bodleian, the National Archives, etc. - and yet, here I am writing in Virginia, an ocean away such valuable resources. And if my physical location wasn't enough of a barrier (I have, after all, traveled to England in the past), the Covid-19 pandemic has been rather problematic as well. I'm not telling anyone anything they don't know - this horrible virus has been plaguing the globe now for the past year-and-a-half (plus), with no end in sight as far as I can tell. Because of that, England's borders have been closed to American travelers (a wise decision, I should add), and there goes any hope for my visiting the country to conduct some primary source consultation and research.
SO... I have been having to do my best with what's available online and what's been cited in other secondary sources. And that really hasn't been an entirely dismal - it's just a challenge. Add that to the fact that my little local libraries have a MUCH different selection of books on the political and religious landscape of the mid-Tudor period than what I'm used to at my Oxford colleges. Again, a challenge! Luckily, I have found a very nice resource in Shenandoah University - just a few miles away from home, which contains many of the sources that I've had trouble getting my hands on. I've learned, through the work I've done on this manuscript so far, that having an educational institution at your disposal is essential. It also provides a lovely and quiet place to work. (If you follow me on Twitter, you'll know that I spend a glorious seven-hour stretch there just last week, and it made me feel very nostalgic for my Oxford days.)
I'm also extraordinarily lucky, given that many of the most valuable primary sources are available online in digitized formats. The various Calendars of State Papers (Domestic, Spanish, Venetian, etc.) are all mercifully available - and while I'd love to be poring over these texts in person, I'll take what I can get. Letters and papers during the reign of Henry VIII are also online (though I bought myself a hard copy from Amazon), as well as Hall's Chronicle, the Lisle Letters, and various personal letters between Edward, Mary, Elizabeth, and Katherine Parr. 
Which has been my favorite source so far, you ask? I feel extremely fortunate that we have Edward's own words to reflect on, courtesy of his Chronicle (or 'Diary') that he kept between ages twelve and fifteen. Though he shares very little of his emotion in the words he writes, he does give an account of his reign through his own eyes and pen. The value of such a resource - frustrating as it might be at times - cannot be overstated. However, the real star in my primary source reading has been the Imperial Ambassador Francois van der Delft, who frequently wrote back to Charles V about the goings-on at the English court between 1545 and 1550. His descriptions of events - incredibly detailed and at times full of humor - have been some of my favorite words to read as I've transported myself back to Edward's reign. When I had to write about his death in June 1550 just a couple of weeks ago, I had a brief few moments of mourning for the loss of his account of events. His successor as Charles V's ambassador, Jean Scheyfve, is still valuable, but I miss van der Delft. 

At the time of this writing, my manuscript sits at around 49,000 words. My aim is to end around 80,000 words - which will include my references, notes, and bibliography. I also need to acquire the artwork that I'd like to include, and gain the appropriate permissions. And anyone who's written anything knows very well that it's not just about getting to the final word count... Once I hit the 'right' number, I'll see to the arduous task of combing back through the entire thing, bit-by-bit, chapter-by-chapter, to proofread, edit, and rewrite myself. The first draft of the full-length manuscript is due to my publisher in early February, and then will begin the real editing process. I'm told that part can take months, so as of now I haven't the faintest idea when the finished book might be available for purchase. It's a long road!
It's also been really fun. I'm constantly pinching myself because it's hard to wrap my head around the fact that I'm actually writing my first history book! This has been a dream of mine for as long as I can remember - certainly for the last fifteen years - and a part of me had thought I'd given up on this particular dream when I decided not to pursue the academic life and work towards my PhD. I assumed I would never be in a position to write a book like this for a publisher, and I certainly never could have guessed that said publisher would actually approach me about it. I feel enormously lucky every day - even when finding the time to right proves to be a challenge. All I can hope is that I'm doing the research, the writing, the story of Edward VI the credit and justice that it's due. I'm working very hard to do exactly that.

I can't wait to share more with you as the months progress and I come closer to finishing the first draft and submitting it. If you're interested, be sure to follow me on Twitter, where I share frequent writing updates and anecdotes (@TudorEnthusiast). By the end of the year, I hope to have completed the writing, so that the month of January can be devoted to editing and cleaning up... and if you're following along, you can hold me accountable!

I am thrilled to be today's stop on Tony Riches' virtual book blog tour spotlighting the first in his 'Brandon Trilogy' - Mary: Tudor Princess. This novel, first published in 2018, is new to me, and only the second novel I've read featuring Princess Mary Tudor, sister of Henry VIII. For those of you who might be unfamiliar with the book, here's the back-cover blurb: 

"From the author of the international best-selling Tudor Trilogy, the true story of the Tudor dynasty continues with the daughter of King Henry VII, sister to King Henry VIII. Mary Tudor watches her elder brother become King of England and wonders what the future holds for her. 

Born into great privilege, Mary has beauty and intelligence beyond her years and is the most marriageable princess in Europe. Henry plans to use her marriage to build a powerful alliance against his enemies. Will she dare risk his anger by marrying for love? 

Meticulously researched and based on actual events, this 'sequel' follows Mary's story from book three of the Tudor Trilogy and is set during the reign of King Henry VIII.

I'm pleased to say that, even though this novel is described as a 'sequel' to the Tudor trilogy, it is very readable as a standalone story (I haven't yet read the Tudor trilogy, though it's on my list!). 

This was a really enjoyable novel, following a figure from Tudor history who doesn't often star in her own story. I'm only aware of a few other novels that center on Mary's life, so this was a treat for me. I was especially interested to see how Tony Riches would handle Mary's first marriage to Louis XII of France - as this is a marriage and period of her life that can be interpreted a number of different ways. Was he a decrepit old man who she shuddered to be around (as depicted in Showtime's The Tudors? Was he a kindly and understanding man who proved good company, if not the romantic love she desired? 

I actually really enjoyed the way Riches handled this relationship, and the way he characterized Mary and her kindness in general. Her relationship and marriage with Henry VIII's best friend and courtier, Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, was equally good and convincing - though I was surprised to see the way the aftermath of their secret wedding was described. Henry was not nearly so angry and punishing of them in this novel as (I believe) he was in real life, and this played a relatively small part in their relationship. I defer to Tony on these details, as he no doubt did quite a lot more research on this than I have done... but it did surprise me! I was bracing myself for drama between Mary, Charles, and Henry - and yet, the king seemed fairly pleased with the arrangement. 

The handling of Mary and Charles's marriage - especially towards the end - was handled well, and we see much more of Mary's relationships with Henry's deposed queen, Catherine of Aragon, and new queen, Anne Boleyn. This is an interesting viewpoint by which to look at the king's 'Great Matter' and the political upheaval of the late 1520s-early 1530s. By the time I reached the final pages of the novel, I felt connected to Mary and her story, and was sad to see it end. We (as Tudor enthusiasts) know where her husband's story will go from there, but I wasn't ready to say goodbye to Mary... and that's the sign of a good, engaging novel!

Many thanks to Tony Riches and Amy Bruno of of 'Historical Fiction Virtual Book Tours' for the opportunity to read and review Mary: Tudor Princess and host today's stop on this book tour.

It was a pleasure, and I'm excited to move on to book #2 in the trilogy - Brandon: Tudor Knight! Be sure to stop back here next Monday (20 September) for my review and spotlight of that novel. 

In the meantime, pick up or download your own copy of Mary: Tudor Princess, and connect with author Tony Riches at the below links: 

• ​Purchase the novel at Amazon HERE
• Connect with Tony on Twitter (@tonyriches) / Instagram (@tonyriches.author) / Facebook (Tony Riches Author)

Let's have a quick refresher on the fates of his previous four marriages: 

• Catherine of Aragon (married from 1509-1533, ended in annulment and banishment)
• Anne Boleyn (married from 1533-1536, ended in her beheading)
• Jane Seymour (married from 1536-1537, ended in her death following childbirth)
• Anne of Cleves (married for six months in 1540, ended because Henry was not attracted to her)

​It was not the most successful track record of marriages, to say the least, but Henry VIII was evidently dead-set on being married and producing more heirs for England. He had only one son - at this time not even three years old - and that just wasn't the most stable succession situation, especially as Henry aged and became increasingly unhealthy. Who could know how long the king had to live? If possible, he needed to provide at least one more son to act as a spare to young Prince Edward. The security of the English throne depended on it.
And so, he turned his eye to the young, vivacious, and beautiful Catherine Howard. The young woman had been placed in the household of Henry's fourth wife, the German-born Anne of Cleves, upon her arrival in England seven months prior. Catherine's uncle, the notoriously powerful and ambitious third Duke of Norfolk, was no stranger to propping his nieces up in front of the king (he had assisted heavily in his elder niece, Anne Boleyn's rise several years prior). While it may not have been his immediate intention to situate Catherine to be Henry's next wife (after all, Anne of Cleves had just arrived and no one could have predicted that the king would send her away again by mid-summer), it might be more likely that the duke intended for Catherine to become the king's mistress. Such a position would still have been a powerful and advantageous one for the Howard family, and certainly more likely than the idea of marriage. 
But Henry's head was turned from the earliest days of Catherine's arrival at court. Upon meeting his new bride, he was instantly repulsed and infamously had zero interest in consummating the union. It's no surprise then that he noticed the teenaged Catherine, who likely looked even more dazzling and enticing next to his unattractive new wife. 

Within just a few months of knowing Catherine, the king was bestowing gifts of clothes, jewels, and even lands upon her. She was, by contemporary accounts, well-liked and admired, being described by the French ambassador as 'delightful'. She was also evidently beautiful - with auburn hair and fair skin. Henry was enchanted by her, and as Thomas Cromwell continued to fail in ​finding a new wife for him with whom to replace Anne, Henry's mind was being made up. He wanted Catherine, describing her as 'the very jewel of womanhood', and perhaps desiring her more than any woman before her. By the end of June 1540, Anne was commanded to leave court, being informed of Henry's decision of an annulment. She didn't complain, and soon after consented to the end of the marriage. Their union was formally dissolved on 9 July, paving the way for Henry to take his new bride less than three weeks later. As Anne settled into her new home away from court, Catherine Howard prepared for her royal wedding. 
On this day, the two were married at Oatlands Palace by Bishop Edmund Bonner. This was the very same day that Henry's former right-hand man and facilitator of his previous marriage, Thomas Cromwell, was executed on Tower Hill. Upon the wedding ceremony, Catherine adopted her royal motto (as all queens did), and chose the phrase 'No other will but his' - an ironic one, given her infidelity and treason within the next two years. The marriage would not be formally made public until 8 August, and so the newlyweds were afforded some private time to enjoy a quiet honeymoon of sorts - and we can only imagine that this was more pleasing to Henry than it was to Catherine. 
I won't dive into the logistics of the marriage from this point forward, as there are other blog posts on this website devoted to such topics. On this day, anyway, members of the court could have been led to believe that the marriage between Henry and Catherine would be a successful and happy one. A seventeen-year-old would surely prove fertile and amorous enough to provide England with more heirs, and her youth and beauty would keep the ageing, increasingly-ill-tempered king a bit happier. Little could everyone have known that Catherine would betray Henry within the next year, consigning herself to the same fate as her cousin, Anne Boleyn. 

This is a little-known-fact (actually, I don't think I've ever talked about it), but The Tudor Enthusiast came into being largely because I ended up with too much time on my hands in the summer of 2011. I was between my freshman and sophomore years of college at George Mason University (studying Psychology), and that June I had ended a year-long relationship. I was home, bored, and in need of an outlet. Roughly four years prior, I had discovered the world of Tudor history, but apart from reading books and watching a handful of Tudor TV shows and movies, I hadn't made that interest a particularly large part of my life. Now as I found myself with too much time on my hands (more time to read about the Tudors, but with sadly few people with whom to discuss the things I was learning), I decided to start a blog. The world of blogging was exploding around this time, so it's not altogether surprising that I turned to this idea as a creative outlet. But I had zero expectations for this little Weebly website that I named 'The Tudor Enthusiast'. I simply wanted a place to write about the people, places, and events that interested me. Specifically, I wanted to discuss the Showtime show, 'The Tudors', and pretend that I had a wide audience of history fans reading what I wrote. Of course, I didn't at the time. 
I created a Facebook page shortly after my first few blog posts were published. In the beginning, it was likely only my mom who was reading my writing (thanks, Mom!), but over time - shockingly, as I was able to keep up the motivation to type out my random thoughts and bits of research - a small following began to grow on Facebook. I don't recall the timeline (I'm guessing it took several months to hit 100 followers), but eventually I knew that I was writing for more people than just my mom! What a wild discovery.

In the Fall of 2012, I was given the opportunity to study abroad at the University of Oxford. I had already declared a History minor at GMU (concentrating on European history), and I had never visited England. Naturally it was my dream to get there in order to explore the real-life sites of the Tudor period, so when I arrived in the UK for that semester, a whole new world opened to me. I blogged my butt off as I studied Henry VIII and his wives, the works of Shakespeare, and the political climate of the sixteenth century. I visited historical sites and my Tudor Enthusiast following grew. I read and reviewed books, and found myself with multiple requests from authors and publishers who wanted to send me their work to review. Now that was a dream! I was being 'paid' for my writing in free books! Writing those book reviews became my favorite thing about running The Tudor Enthusiast, and my 'Book Recommendations' tab grew exponentially over the next few years. 
In 2014, upon graduating from GMU, I jetted off to the UK once again to begin my one-year graduate program at Mansfield College, University of Oxford. I read for an MSt in Modern British and European History under the supervision of Dr. Tracey Sowerby (Keble College). My mentors during this time included Dr. Steve Gunn (Merton College), who has written several highly-acclaimed Tudor books, and served as a great source of inspiration to me. Of course, while there for this year-long program, I continued to read/review and blog in nearly all my free time. 
When I returned home in 2015, my Tudor Enthusiast devotion dwindled, and that's because I met my now-husband, started working full-time, and began the all-consuming process of adulting and starting a family! While I continued posting book and TV show reviews from time-to-time, I simply did not have the same amount of time as I'd had in the past to write several blog posts a week. We married in May 2019, my son was born in April 2020, and within just a few months of his birth I found myself revisiting The Tudor Enthusiast​, wondering if anyone was still reading the things I had blogged about for years. To my amazement, my website still received hundreds of hits a day, and my Facebook following had continued to grow, despite my infrequent posts!

To clarify, my love for the Tudors had not waned during this period of time, but it had not been able to be the priority that it had once been. However, seeing how many people still seemed to care about what I'd written, and how I had a full email inbox of inquiries, invitations, and feedback about my site, I suddenly felt a renewed sense of inspiration. By the end of 2020 I was trying to figure out how to make The Tudor Enthusiast fresh and interesting. How could I devote the time to continue blogging, researching, and growing my readership? 
These questions were answered when, in January 2021, I found a message from Pen and Sword Books UK, asking me if I would consider writing a book for them. I was astounded. Of course, I replied immediately, discussing the particulars with the commissioning editor. The decision was a frightening one (how would I have the time, what if I can't do the necessary research, what if it's a failure, etc.), but it was also a no-brainer. Of course I would write this biography of Edward VI. 100% yes, absolutely. Writing books, becoming published (especially in the history space) has been a dream of mine for a decade. 
This revitalized my enthusiasm for this site even more. I began the process of research by the end of January, signed my book contract on 1 February, and the rest has been history. I've taken my responsibility to The Tudor Enthusiast website and social media extremely seriously. I've determined how important it is to me to establish myself as a historian (and hopefully a respected one). I make the time, I prioritize the research, the blogging, the updating, and the book-writing. No, it's not easy, but seeing the way The Tudor Enthusiast has grown SO MUCH over just the past five months has been incredible. I truly believe the sky is the limit for this little website - which began as nothing more than a personal online diary for my nerdy Tudor thoughts, and now has culminated into a community of thousands, as well as a book deal. 

As I reflect back, some of my favorite moments of The Tudor Enthusiast have been the emails I've received from readers (I love your feedback and thoughts), and I hope those continue into the future! As I plan ahead, I hope to add more exciting content to this community. I welcome the opportunity to visit other sites in the form of guest posts and interviews. I dream about being featured on a podcast. I am excited beyond belief at the thought of sharing my first book with you. I think there is SO much ahead for The Tudor Enthusiast, and at the end of the day, it's all due to my fabulous readers. 
Whether you've been with me since day one or you've joined me somewhere in the days since, I can't thank you enough! Because of your enthusiasm, interest, and support, this website and its social media has grown more than I had ever expected or hoped for. There is much more ahead, and I hope you'll be with me for all of it!

4. Anne Boleyn (and her downfall) features heavily in this novel. In your opinion, what led to her execution? Who was behind it? Was she totally innocent?

I think the blame is ultimately down to Henry VIII.  Yes, Cromwell helped it along and did all the work behind the scenes.  He even had a hand in bringing down nobles whom he felt were a threat to his interests.  But as for Anne…that was all Henry.  I believe Anne’s miscarriage cemented in Henry’s mind that he would never have a son by her, and Katherine of Aragon’s death gave him the chance to get out of the marriage without being forced to take back his first wife.  He saw a window of opportunity and seized it.  It didn’t help Anne’s case that she was one of those women I talked about in the last question: opinionated, headstrong, non-conformist.  In many ways, she threatened Henry’s rule just by being herself (in Henry’s opinion at least!).  Anne was absolutely innocent of the charges brought against her.  Her only mistake lay in her inability to guard her tongue.  There is no getting around the fact that she did “imagine the king’s death” in her ill-advised conversation with Henry Norris.  But I don’t for one minute believe she would have been executed for her remark had she already given the king a son; had she been “obedient” in all other ways; had the king not already set his heart upon Jane Seymour.

5. Fast forward to Jane's time with Catherine Howard. What are your thoughts on this portion of her life, and in your opinion, did she make any mistakes as it related to Catherine and Thomas Culpeper?

Jane made plenty of mistakes during this time period, but it isn’t at all surprising given the experiences that brought her to this point.  I think she found herself in an impossible situation and she was merely trying to do the best she could with what she had.  After Cromwell’s death, she had no one looking out for her interests.  Not that Cromwell did a great job of that, but he did help her when no one else (not even her father) would.  Without him, who could she have gone to?  It was just as dangerous to go to the king with accusations of his wife’s infidelities as it was to help her commit them.  Remember that none of the nobles even wanted to be the one to tell Henry what was going on.  They forced poor Cranmer to do it.  There was no way Jane was tattling to the king.  Beyond that, how was she to turn down Catherine in the first place?  Regardless of whether “she knew better” or not.  If you wanted to keep your place, you did what the queen asked. And who would have believed she would be executed alongside Catherine?  None of Anne’s maids had been executed.   I’ve spent a lot of time trying to figure out what she could have done differently and I’ve failed to come up with much in the way of alternatives.  At the end of the day, Jane was alone, mentally and emotionally traumatized from prior events, and an extremely biddable person.  She did what anyone might have done in her position.    

6. I've heard theories that Jane 'faked' mental illness while imprisoned in the Tower of London, perhaps in the hopes that she would escape execution. What are your thoughts on this? 

If I’m being honest, I pretty much immediately shut down when I hear theories like this.  For anyone who has struggled with mental illness, those sorts of comments feel very dismissive and callous.  Her responses to the interrogation she was subjected to in 1541 leaves no doubt in my mind that she was suffering.  Looking back on her life – knowing this – I can see that there is a possibility she struggled with her mental health even in her early days.  There is certainly a family history of it.  Her grandfather suffered with bouts of madness.  I don’t for one moment believe that any of it was faked.  

On this day in 1489, Thomas Cranmer was born to parents Thomas and Agnes in Aslockton, Nottinghamshire. His family was of middling gentry status, and as one of the younger brothers of the family Thomas was destined for a clerical career from the start, as his elder brother John would inherit the family estate. He was educated at Jesus College, Cambridge following the death of his father, and earned his Bachelor of Arts degree in eight years. He had a special interest and affinity in the humanists (particularly Erasmus), and soon after earned his Master of Arts degree in 1515, followed by the opportunity for a fellowship with Jesus College. By now, he was fully-invested in his theological studies and well on his way to the priesthood. However, before taking his vows, he married a woman named Joan - which forfeited his chances of becoming a priest, and caused him to withdraw from his fellowship. Instead, he took a position as a reader at another Cambridge college -Buckingham Hall (later known as Magdalene College). Soon after, Joan died in childbirth, he was reinstated as a Fellow of Jesus College, established as a preacher for the university, and earned his Doctorate in Divinity in 1526. It was a whirlwind several years!
We know that his interest in the humanists grew and helped to develop his own religious thought, and Cranmer is thought to have had a deep-seated dislike for Martin Luther at this time, who was already spreading his own religious ideas throughout Europe. Cranmer appears to have been fairly traditional in his doctrine during the 1520s, and was even selected by Cardinal Wolsey - along with a few other Cambridge men - to serve as ambassadors on religious missions across the Continent. 

By 1527, Cranmer was assisting Wolsey with annulment proceedings for Henry VIII and his first queen, Catherine of Aragon. It's unlikely that Cranmer could have ever expected his life would take such a turn - that he would be in service to the King of England! From this point, Cranmer would begin making connections with humanists and religious men across Europe as he discussed Henry VIII's 'Great Matter' and attempted to gain support for the annulment. By the early 1530s, he came in contact with a German reformer named Martin Bucer, from whom Cranmer would learn much and form his own progressive ideology. As he traveled Europe on diplomatic work on behalf of the king, he saw the early days of European reformation, and his eyes were opened. He began to question key elements of the Catholic faith - such as the belief in Purgatory and the veneration of saints, holy images, and relics, though he maintained his belief in the core concept of transubstantiation (Christ's real presence in the bread and wine of holy communion). As he learned and grew in his own religious convictions, the Boleyn family in England was on the rise, and he firmly supported Anne's cause. While in Europe in October 1532, he receive a surprising letter informing him that he had been appointed Archbishop of Canterbury - a promotion that shocked not only him, but religious men throughout England. Cranmer had never held more than minor religious positions, but his placement at the center of Henry VIII's 'Great Matter', and particularly his support by the ever-more-powerful Boleyn family, gave him opportunities he would not otherwise have had. 
Given this honor, the pressure was on. Cranmer devoted himself to pursuing the king's challenging annulment and sought to make a second marriage with Anne Boleyn legal. The following January, Henry and Anne were wed in a secret ceremony (though Cranmer wouldn't learn of the marriage for two weeks), by the end of May he had ruled that Henry's marriage to Catherine was invalid, and on 1 June, he himself crowned the new Queen Anne at Westminster Abbey. Pope Clement VII was enraged, and he excommunicated Henry VIII, along with Cranmer. 

There is much more to Cranmer's story, of course. This was only the beginning of a lengthy career of service to not only Henry VIII, but also to his son, Edward VI. Anne Boleyn would go on to have only one daughter - the future Elizabeth I, while Henry VIII's third wife, Jane Seymour, would give birth to the future king in 1537. Cranmer would remain one of Henry's most trusted companions, advisors, and religious officials until 1547, when Henry VIII would breathe his last and leave the throne to his 9-year-old son. At this point, Cranmer's reformation work would really take off - facilitated by the equally (if not more so) progressive Edward Seymour. Cranmer's religious convictions would solidify throughout the 1540s, culminating in a newfound rejection of transubstantiation and the creation of the Book of Common Prayer of 1549 - a book that is still very recognizable to the current edition for the Anglican Church today. Under Edward's reign, Cranmer would publish a number of religious works and articles, detailing the progression of the English Reformation... and consequently becoming a chief enemy of Edward's successor, his very-Catholic sister, Mary I. Upon her rise to the throne in 1553 (following her brother's early death at age fifteen), Cranmer's star would fall dramatically. 
Mary would view him as the man who caused her mother, Catherine of Aragon, to lose her husband, her status, and her very life. After all, because of Cranmer's involvement in Henry VIII's 'Great Matter' during the late 1520s and early 1530s, Mary's life had been forever changed, and her mother's life ruined. For decades, Mary had resented and hated the man, and so upon her accession it would become one of her chieftest goals to bring him down. Indeed, by the end of 1553 he would be arrested and tried for treason and heresy. He would be condemned to death and subsequently transferred from prison to prison for the next few years - given ample opportunity to recant his heretical beliefs, before finally being put to death by burning at the stake in Oxford on 21 March 1556. 

He had signed a recantation prior to his execution, but was reportedly so ashamed on the day of his death that he rescinded it and determined that his traitorous hand should be burnt at the stake first. True to his word, he set his right hand into the heart of the flames before they engulfed the rest of his body. 
Today, Cranmer is remembered as a martyr of the Reformation. Biographers from both Catholic and Protestant perspectives disagree on certain aspects of his character, arguing over his obsession with royal supremacy and pleasing a 'tyrannical' king, vs. his true religious convictions. Nevertheless, he was an integral figure of the period and deeply important to the religious climate in England during the sixteenth century. Though he would be gone by the time Elizabeth I would take the throne in 1558, his ideals, published works, and principles would rise again under her Protestant rule. His words, beliefs, and teachings would have a lasting effect on England, and are present even to this day. 
This was certainly a brief overview of Thomas Cranmer's life. There is so much more to be said - particularly about his work during Edward's reign - but this blog post would end up being far too long! In lieu of writing extensively about every detail of his life, I encourage readers to dive further into his story by exploring some of these books: 

Thanks for reading! What are YOUR thoughts on this fascinating and influential Tudor figure?