Accessories

ANOTHER WINNER
TOO GOOD TO PUT DOWN. JUST CAN'T WAIT TO READ ANOTHER ONE OF GREGORY'S BOOKS. LOVE THEM ALL.

Great into a character lost in history
The Constant Princess explored from childhood Katherine of Aragon's life. Most of us I think just know her as the queen Henry VIII first put aside trying to get a legitimate male heir to his throne. But I had no idea the history she went through from her parents to the extent of her efforts to gain a marriage to Henry in the first place. I realize this is historical fiction but it does give you a much better understanding of the times, the customs, culture, even mannerisms of this era. Anyone who enjoys historical fiction or british literature won't be able to put this down. I have since read the entire Tudor collection of books by Philipa Gregory and would also recommend Innocent Traitor by Alison Weir and The Autobiography of Henry VIII (a novel) by Margaret George. I have really enjoyed the vibrant picture that this book and the series has brought to life and will continue reading!

The Constant Problem of Being Married to Henry
This is the fictionalized story of Catalina, the first wife of Henry the VIII, and the one he was wedded to the longest, unless you buy that the marriage was fairly annulled.

The thing with historical fiction is that you have to read it with acceptance that a writer will make up or fill in that which she cannot know, railing against a writer for doing this when the book is labeled historical fiction is silly.

What we do now about Catalina is that she was the daughter of two strong rulers -- Ferdinand and Isabella. The royal upbringing taught her how to endure with dignity and the royal blood probably saved her life. History shows her to be a woman who again and again patiently accepted adversity and indignities for her belief that she was the rightful Queen of England. The book embellishes this trait, but the truth of it is well-represented in the history books.

Catalina came for a warm, sunny palace into a cold rainy land filled with strangers. She was widowed early, having married Henry's older brother, and then spent years in limbo while her father-in-law tried to see if she could do better than her for the spare who was now the heir. She was reduced to tatters, couldn't pay her staff, and had to sell her valuables, but she waited. And she did this when she was still a child, really.

Decades later her husband sought to deny their marriage, to have it annulled. He kept her daughter from her. She stripped her of her title, only allowing her the title of Dowager Princess due her for being his brother's widow. In seeking to take away her dignity he lost his own.

This is the historical truth and it's fascinating, but these facts alone don't make a novel, they don't honor the fact that this woman lived. What the book does is imagine what the flesh and blood woman would have been like, where did she get her resolve? Did she love Henry? Did she love his brother, Arthur? Did she ever doubt? Did she ever want to waiver? She'd denied her first marriage was consummated and Henry was eager to believe it until he wanted her gone. What the author does is give one theory on her first marriage that there would be no way to verify...

But that's okay.

It doesn't matter if Gregory is right, and it's doubtful that she was exactly right, because that ceases to be the point. We don't know and will never know what Catalina did or felt, but what Gregory reminds us is that she lived, and that she felt love for her countries -- Spain and England -- and that she was cast aside for no other reason than she hit menopause before producing a male heir for a man who'd become a petulant child. And that she deserved better than that, but that she knew that.

I like the historical woman and I liked the fictional version I met in the book, and I don't need to think that Gregory got her exactly right, because writing this genre seems pretty thankless. I can enjoy both the framework of history, as well as the made-up story.

The journey of the fictional woman was from a place of a well-indoctrinated child with many admirable qualities, but also the prejudices of her parent, to a place where she can question her past beliefs. There is no indication this is factually true, but was believable and interesting in the context of fiction.

When history buffs get angry at fictional elements in a book clearly marked as such, when they get wild-eyed because a writer doesn't support their pet theory, they harm the memory of the historical character more than help that memory, because they don't allow the person a chance to live again. They also insult the reader by saying they can't comprehend the difference between the truth and the make-believe parts. I'm sure there are confused people, aren't there always?

I recommend this story for history buffs, for people who enjoy women's fiction, and for those people who can handle both in one book.

Constant Princess
Loved this book....want to read more by Philippa Gregory. If you love historical novels, it's a very good read.

Why the jaded political statement to ruin the book?
The author does quite well in telling the story of the young Infanta Katalina, daughter of Isabella and Ferdinand of Spain, betrothed at three years old to Arthur, Prince of Wales, son of England's Henry VII.
She knows she will one day be ruler of a distant cold land.

Her reception in England is rude and shocking as she is insulted by an arrogant and seemingly coarse King Henry VII, and married to the callow and awkward Arthur.
She must hold on to all her faith and strength against the rude attentions of the king and the domination of the king's cold and hard mother Lady Margaret of Beaufort.
After the death of Arthur, the ambitious Katalina aims to marry Arthur's younger brother Henry Prince of Wales against the opposition of the king (who had himself hoped towed Catherine) and the dowager king's mother Margaret.
The author does well in exploring the young Katalina's emotions and the power play in the English court.
the central themes are that Catherine's marriage to Arthur was consummated and Catherine kept this a secret in order to become Queen after Arthur's death.
This forms the base of the narrative. The truth is we will never know and historical novel writing is indeed about surmising and filling in the gaps.
What I disliked about the book was the political statement by the author who uses the novel to try to praise what she refers to as "the rich beautiful and tolerant culture of the Muslims of Spain."
The truth is that the Muslim Empire of the Moors was built on conquest and aimed to forcibly convert non-Muslims, treating minorities with a Dhimmi status (Ever heard of the slaughter in Spain by the fanatical Almohads?)
Whatever the case, this was not the time and place for the author to make a political statement about what she sees Christian bias and the need for accommodation with the Islamic world.
It is doubtful that Catherine of Aragon cherished Islamic culture and she certainly did not regret her country's defence against the Moors.
Why ruin the novel with this 21st century PC drivel about 'prejudice' against poor innocent Moslems and how Katherine realizes the wrongs of all of this and how the war against the Moslems by Spain is sooo wrong. The Spanish were fighting to get their land back from the Islamic Empire.,..hardly something to apologize about.
Clearly the author was trotting out the line so popular today that we shouldn't fight back against Moslems.
You wouldn't have got that sort of drivel in a histroical novel twenty years ago or before.