Historical Fiction Thread

[proserpina65]

1 minute ago, Katy M said:

again, she was a dumb kid. 

We'll have to agree to disagree, since I believe she had plenty of evidence in front of her that adultery was really the wrong road to go down and she was stupid enough to do it anyway.

[Katy M]

1 minute ago, proserpina65 said:

We'll have to agree to disagree, since I believe she had plenty of evidence in front of her that adultery was really the wrong road to go down and she was stupid enough to do it anyway.

From what I understand, though, Jane Rochester egged her on.  But, yes, we can agree to disagree.  I mean I do agree that she was beyond stupid. I just still feel sorry for her because I don't believe her stupidity warranted a beheading.

[proserpina65]

1 minute ago, Katy M said:

I don't believe her stupidity warranted a beheading.

Well, that I can agree with.  Stupidity should never warrant a beheading.

[Ohiopirate02]

6 minutes ago, Katy M said:

again, she was a dumb kid.  The best I can say for her family was maybe they were hoping Henry would die shortly after the marriage.  

Yes.  Anne definitely made out the best of the 6 wives.  Jane Seymour probably would have died after childbirth regardless who she had married and was married to Henry such a short time (and managed to give him a on at the end of her life) that she didn't have long enough to get on his bad side.  Katherine Parr's tragedies mostly came out of her own bad decisions after Henry's death.  And while I feel sorry for Catherine of Aragon, she wasn't as innocent as some of the others.  Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard fared the worst, IMO.

Catherine of Aragon's stubbornness intrigues me.  One one hand I get why she refused to make Henry's life easier, but she had one job and failed.  Henry was not the first king to ever seek an annulment after years of marriage to a woman who failed to give birth to a son.  Most famously, Eleanor of Aquitaine was both the Queen of France and the Queen of England.  I know England never had salic law, but the only ruling queen in their history, Matilda, was a failure.  I get why Henry wanted a new wife to try to get a son.  But, I also realize Catherine could not bear to see Anne Boleyn rise.  I do wonder what Catherine would have done if Henry wanted to marry another royal.  Would she have stubbornly refused to acquiesce to an annulment in that case?  

 

[proserpina65]

4 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Catherine of Aragon's stubbornness intrigues me.  One one hand I get why she refused to make Henry's life easier, but she had one job and failed.  Henry was not the first king to ever seek an annulment after years of marriage to a woman who failed to give birth to a son.  Most famously, Eleanor of Aquitaine was both the Queen of France and the Queen of England.  I know England never had salic law, but the only ruling queen in their history, Matilda, was a failure.  I get why Henry wanted a new wife to try to get a son.  But, I also realize Catherine could not bear to see Anne Boleyn rise.  I do wonder what Catherine would have done if Henry wanted to marry another royal.  Would she have stubbornly refused to acquiesce to an annulment in that case?  

 

The accounts I've read say that Catherine may have actually loved Henry.  And she certainly felt she was his loyal wife and deserved for him to stand by her.  That may not have been realistic given the time period, but to me it's understandable.  She did give him sons, but they died as infants.  Which was likely as much due to Henry as her.

[Ohiopirate02]

5 minutes ago, proserpina65 said:

The accounts I've read say that Catherine may have actually loved Henry.  And she certainly felt she was his loyal wife and deserved for him to stand by her.  That may not have been realistic given the time period, but to me it's understandable.  She did give him sons, but they died as infants.  Which was likely as much due to Henry as her.

I do agree that Catherine did really love Henry.  I also do think Henry loved her in his own way until he didn't.  Or he loved the idea of marrying her after Catherine spent years in Henry VII's court, broke, and with an uncertain future.  Henry always loved to see himself as the hero.

Keeping this about the fiction versions of the Tudors, I absolutely hated Philippa Gregory's take on her.  Arthur, the man she was married to for 5 months as teenagers, was the love of her life and the reason why she couldn't divorce was because she made a promise.  Oh and BTW, they totally did it.  Nothing in the historical record about Catherine supports this.  She would never lie to Church authorities about something so major.  She was too devout to ever contemplate it.  

[andromeda331]

48 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

I do agree that Catherine did really love Henry.  I also do think Henry loved her in his own way until he didn't.  Or he loved the idea of marrying her after Catherine spent years in Henry VII's court, broke, and with an uncertain future.  Henry always loved to see himself as the hero.

Keeping this about the fiction versions of the Tudors, I absolutely hated Philippa Gregory's take on her.  Arthur, the man she was married to for 5 months as teenagers, was the love of her life and the reason why she couldn't divorce was because she made a promise.  Oh and BTW, they totally did it.  Nothing in the historical record about Catherine supports this.  She would never lie to Church authorities about something so major.  She was too devout to ever contemplate it.  

I agree its unlikely that Catherine would lie. Also it wasn't that uncommon for royal marriages to not be consummated right away. Many waited months or even years. But what I really hate is it really shouldn't even matter. They were married. To marry Henry they got the approval from the Pope. It all was good and legal. And of course Henry himself slept with Mary Boleyn and most likely father at least one of her kids and then married her sister. So why wasn't that a sin? Oh wait cause Henry didn't care and wanted out of his marriage. Plus for all the comment on that one passage in the Bible that it would be unclean. How about the one that says you should marry your brother's widow not to mention that it was an extremely common thing? Mostly for convenience. But it still happened.

[Spartan Girl]

I too am on Team Catherine and I don't blame her one bit for not backing down and not giving Henry an easy divorce. It wasn't just about her, it was about her daughter, poor Mary, and protecting her rightful inheritance. It wasn't her fault she couldn't produce a son. Plus, it's really hard for me to sympathize with Anne Boleyn: not putting out til you're married isn't an early example of feminism, it's just the oldest gold digger trick in the book. She helped Henry hound Catherine to her death and tried to have Mary executed. She may not have deserved to be executes, but karma.

Philippa Gregory is a guilty pleasure for me. If it weren't for her, I wouldn't have gotten into Tudor fiction.

Speaking of which, anyone read The Virgin's Lover? I really love the double standards: Anne and Katherine H are whores for sleeping their way to the throne, but when Robert Dudley pulls that crap with Elizabeth, everyone praises his ambitious and trashes his poor long-suffering wife Amy for getting n the way of his path to power.

Edited May 23, 2020 by Spartan Girl

[Haleth]

19 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

I do wonder what Catherine would have done if Henry wanted to marry another royal.  Would she have stubbornly refused to acquiesce to an annulment in that case?  

It seems she never would have allowed her daughter to be declared a bastard, whatever promises Henry made about providing for her.  Had Catherine not fought for her legitimacy would Mary have ascended the throne?  Would things have been any different?

Although historical fiction is my favorite genre I usually don't care for novels about real people.  To me it's kind of disrespectful to put invented words into their mouths and place them in made up situations.  I'd rather read a good biography than a novel.  Strangely, I don't mind movies or tv shows that do this.  I may not enjoy reading The White Queen/Princess/Spanish Princess but I find the shows fun.

[Katy M]

19 minutes ago, Haleth said:

Had Catherine not fought for her legitimacy would Mary have ascended the throne?  Would things have been any different?

Hard to say.  He had both Elizabeth and Mary declared bastards and they both ascended the throne.  However, had this happened earlier, Mary was of marriageable age and he may have been able to marry her off to a nobleman, and maybe she would have gotten to have children.

 

[peacheslatour]

Quote

Speaking of which, anyone read The Virgin's Lover? I really love the double standards: Anne and Katherine H are whores for sleeping their way to the throne, but when Robert Dudley pulls that crap with Elizabeth, everyone praises his ambitious and trashes his poor long-suffering wife Amy for getting n the way of his path to power.

From what I've read about Leicester, he was utterly despised by the noblemen of the Court and looked down upon as a gigolo..

[Spartan Girl]

1 hour ago, peacheslatour said:

From what I've read about Leicester, he was utterly despised by the noblemen of the Court and looked down upon as a gigolo..

Yeah, that's right. I was referring to his allies and toadies that were praising his ambition and basically helping him make poor Amy's life hell to reap any rewards he'd give him once he was king.

[peacheslatour]

3 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

Yeah, that's right. I was referring to his allies and toadies that were praising his ambition and basically helping him make poor Amy's life hell to reap any rewards he'd give him once he was king.

Lol. He was never going to be king. Queen's Consort at best.

[andromeda331]

11 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

I too am on Team Catherine and I don't blame her one bit for not backing down and not giving Henry an easy divorce. It wasn't just about her, it was about her daughter, poor Mary, and protecting her rightful inheritance. It wasn't her fault she couldn't produce a son. Plus, it's really hard for me to sympathize with Anne Boleyn: not putting out til you're married isn't an early example of feminism, it's just the oldest gold digger trick in the book. She helped Henry hound Catherine to her death and tried to have Mary executed. She may not have deserved to be executes, but karma.

Philippa Gregory is a guilty pleasure for me. If it weren't for her, I wouldn't have gotten into Tudor fiction.

Speaking of which, anyone read The Virgin's Lover? I really love the double standards: Anne and Katherine H are whores for sleeping their way to the throne, but when Robert Dudley pulls that crap with Elizabeth, everyone praises his ambitious and trashes his poor long-suffering wife Amy for getting n the way of his path to power.

I get that. I know that's why a lot of people hate her. I don't for many reasons. First Anne saw what happened to her sister and other mistresses. Basically your the favorite until the King bores or drops you for another. Then your gone. Families of course push their daughters forward to get whatever favors they can get until she loses favor and is out. Anne tried to hold out to be Queen. But that couldn't have happened without Henry wanting and encouraging it. Holding out was smart but it was no guarantee that he wouldn't get bored and look elsewhere or losing interest. As he often did in mistresses. She was terrible to Catherine, Mary and to a lot of people. But Henry didn't care or encouraged all of it. Everything bad that happened once Henry was interested in Anne was blamed on her. Not him. He was happy to suddenly treat Catherine who he loved and had been good too and she to him like crap and their daughter.

Anne ended up finding how much it sucked to be Catherine. The Queen and wife not suppose to notice or care as her husband has affairs, and have affairs. She had only one daughter. But was pregnant at least four times. One miscarriage happened after Henry had that big fall during tournament which a lot of people now think resulted in change in him (I'm not sure on that. It possible of course. But he was happily having people beheaded before then so while it probably sped that up. I think he still would have ended up the crazy tyrant he became) the shock of the fall caused the miscarriage. So Anne ended up getting what she probably deserved to a point since she became the wife/Queen, unable to have a son, and not suppose to say anything as the King had affairs. Unlike Catherine, she knew she could easily be replaced since she just did that to Catherine. 

Then when Henry decided he had enough. He decided to have her beheaded. So the woman he loved so much that he was willing to do anything for, divorce his wife, treat his daughter terribly and have her declared a bastard, uproot the church, establish a new one and other things. He wants her gone. But not divorced. But dead. He sets in motion and people are happy to help him murder his wife. Happy to accuse her of adultery and incest both which everyone knew wasn't true. But didn't care because they hated Anne or were too scared of the King. Anne didn't deserve that and he really didn't have to do that. He could have dismissed her from court or banished her to her family's home or another one and has head of the new church he easily could have gotten a divorce. Anne assumed that's what would happen to her. Divorced and banished like Catherine. Which would actually been a fitting punishment. Nope, Henry wanted her dead. So it was carried out.  Henry of course had already found a new wife in Jane Seymour and got engaged the day before Anne's execution and were married eleven days later. 

The only thing I'm kind of happy about is after Anne's death Henry didn't revert back to the better person he had been earlier. I'm not happy about him continuing to be a tyrant and psycho murdering people when ever he felt like it. But people could no longer blame that on Anne. So many had assumed that with her gone he would be the person/King they liked. I do think that Anne only able to have a daughter was God's punishment to both. Henry did all that to end up with another daughter Anne tried and got to be Queen only to end up like the last one who she helped get rid of.

I feel sorry for each wife. Catherine of Aragon had been a good wife and Queen to Henry. She even put down an attack from Scotland while he was away which resulted in King James's death but placed all on Henry. Jane Seymour had been put forward was an alternative to Anne and played her part where. But when Jane did speak her opinion pardons for those who participated in Pilgrimage of Grace her husband lovingly reminded her what happened to Anne. I do like a remark in Elizabeth's diary Royal Diaries spin off of Dear America series where she thinks Jane was the perfect wife for Henry because she gave him a son and died before he tired of her. 

Anne of Cleves is easy to feel sorry for. It was an arrange married every other King manned up and stayed married to the Queen they were arranged to whether he liked her or not. Nope, not Henry, he decided she was out. Most likely due to that story that @Ohiopirate02 said and divorced her. Anne was smart to accept it but probably ended up the happiest of all his wives. She had a couple castles, plenty money, and was still part of court. She had good relationships with Henry's kids. But no husband. 

Catherine Howard was pretty much just a kid when she got married off to the King. Her family put her forward despite what happened to Anne and didn't care. She didn't deserve either of that.

Catherine Parr was great. She was smart, took care of the King, and had good relations with all his children. Not surprising since she had been married twice before and had stepchildren from her second marriage. She got him to do what Jane had tried which was restore Mary and Elizabeth to their spots. But even she wasn't safe. She was almost arrested for disagreeing with the King. He had set it in motion but changed his mind when Catherine managed to talk her way out of it. She got lucky when he died. Of course then she married Thomas Seymour and got really weird. But also proved that Henry hadn't been able to father another child, when she got pregnant by her second husband.

[Katy M]

1 hour ago, andromeda331 said:

Anne of Cleves is easy to feel sorry for. It was an arrange married every other King manned up and stayed married to the Queen they were arranged to whether he liked her or not. Nope, not Henry, he decided she was out. Most likely due to that story that @Ohiopirate02 said and divorced her. Anne was smart to accept it but probably ended up the happiest of all his wives. She had a couple castles, plenty money, and was still part of court. She had good relationships with Henry's kids. But no husband. 

That's why I don't feel sorry for her. I think she was happy.  I think she liked being independent.  I also think that if she really wanted to get married, Henry would have helped his "most-favored sister" find a husband.  

 

[Spartan Girl]

@andromeda331 I'd like to think that in her final days Anne regretted everything she did to Catherine and Mary. I highly recommend Anne Boleyn: A King's Obsession by Alison Weir, it's a very good take on Anne.

In fact, I got a whole bunch of YA Tudor fiction that's great for right now!

The King's Rose by Alisa M Libby: FANTASTIC novel about Catherine Howard.

Fatal Throne: An anthology of different authors taking on all six of the wives.

Gilt, Tarnish, and Brazen by Katherine Longshore: A trilogy of sorts that's about Catherine Howard, Anne Boleyn, and Mary Howard (the girl that married Henry's bastard son Fitzroy) respectively. They're all great, but Gilt stands out because it's the one take on Catherine Howard that's surprisingly unsympathetic; she's written as the medieval Regina George. 

[Blergh]

17 hours ago, peacheslatour said:

Lol. He was never going to be king. Queen's Consort at best.

Not to mention that Elizabeth was already in her 50's (and had let it slip that she was 'of barren stock' upon getting news of Mary Queen of Scots having born their future heir James VI and I) so at most, Essex would have had roughly a decade of an attempted 'reign' then, when she died, would have had little if any backing to maintain any power thereafter!  There was little if any outcry over his execution but quite a bit of relief! 

While we're on the subject of Tudors, it needs to be said about her half-sister's mother Catherine of Aragon that not only do I believe she sincerely loved him despite ALL the hoops she'd had to jump through as a traditional and fervently religious princess but also, ironically, he loved her the LONGEST of all his wives! And, it also should be noted that she was the daughter of Isabel I of Castille who'd had to literally fight for her OWN throne against the forces of her alleged niece (and  Catherine herself had been born in a hospital tent next to   a battlefield instead of in one of her parents' numerous palaces and castles- yes Isabel actually was willing to risk her own life to fight even when she was due to give birth). Hence  Catherine had grown up with the example of her mother as a strong woman who didn't back down when she believed her  family and rights were being threatened and she wasn't about to let her surviving daughter Mary be brought down without giving it her all to protect her. 

[Haleth]

I read a biography of Isabella a few months ago.  It was very interesting but kind of glossed over the atrocities of the Inquisition and exploitation of the indigenous people of the New World.  (The author suggested the numbers of the dead were probably not as high as generally accepted, so it wasn't that bad.  Really?)  But she was certainly a strong, capable leader and role model for Catherine.

[proserpina65]

On 5/23/2020 at 8:43 PM, Katy M said:

That's why I don't feel sorry for her. I think she was happy.  I think she liked being independent.  I also think that if she really wanted to get married, Henry would have helped his "most-favored sister" find a husband.  

 

I don't feel sorry for her either.  I admire her, and think she was smart and sensible.

[VCRTracking]

 

 

Edited September 3, 2020 by VCRTracking

[Ohiopirate02]

14 hours ago, VCRTracking said:

 

 

And don't forget the apples.

[cherrypj]

Lembas!

[Snow Apple]

LOL. There was a historical romance I read decades ago and can't believe I still remember a scene where the poor heroine assumed the rich hero likes all these fancy foods for a picnic. He responded with how he prefers "A loaf of bread and a round of cheese."

[peacheslatour]

On 9/3/2020 at 5:23 PM, cherrypj said:

Lembas!

I developed a love for cheese, bread and butter when I was reading those books that endures to this day.

[SmithW6079]

On 5/23/2020 at 7:13 AM, Haleth said:

Although historical fiction is my favorite genre I usually don't care for novels about real people.  To me it's kind of disrespectful to put invented words into their mouths and place them in made up situations.  I'd rather read a good biography than a novel.  Strangely, I don't mind movies or tv shows that do this.

I agree. I really don't care for novels using historical characters as main characters. I'm currently trying Allison Weir's Katherine of Aragon novel, but I'm not sure I'll continue. I feel the same way you do -- it's disrespectful. 

I don't even like historical "dramas." The inaccuracies drive me crazy. However,  when played for laughs, then I'm fine. One of my favorites sitcoms is "Upstart Crow," a humorous look at the life of William Shakespeare.

[Ohiopirate02]

16 hours ago, SmithW6079 said:

I agree. I really don't care for novels using historical characters as main characters. I'm currently trying Allison Weir's Katherine of Aragon novel, but I'm not sure I'll continue. I feel the same way you do -- it's disrespectful. 

I don't even like historical "dramas." The inaccuracies drive me crazy. However,  when played for laughs, then I'm fine. One of my favorites sitcoms is "Upstart Crow," a humorous look at the life of William Shakespeare.

I was familiar with Alison Weir's nonfiction, and I enjoyed the ones I did read.  But, her fiction does not work for me.  I also have difficulty reading historical fiction where the author invents plotlines, and her book on Anne of Cleves has that in spades.  There is so much not known about Anne and why she stayed in England after her divorce from Henry VIII that she could have gone in multiple directions, and she went with the most boring and banal reason. 

Spoiler

In Weir's book about Anne of Cleves, Anne has a secret lover and secret pregnancy.  There is nothing in the historical record that supports this.  If Weir was so adamant to create new characters, why not do something a bit more original, and have Anne fall in love with one of her English ladies in waiting.  

 

[blackwing]

On 5/12/2018 at 6:57 AM, Haleth said:

DearEvette, if you enjoyed Pillars of the Earth, look at the third in the series, A Column of Fire which I thought was even better than Pillars.  (The second in the series, which name I forget, isn't as good.)

 

On 5/12/2018 at 8:21 AM, Danny Franks said:

I've not read Pillars of the Earth, but I have read Ken Follet's Century Trilogy, and found that he's very good at bringing past events to life, but he does it through characters that feel rather thin and strikingly similar to one another. But I would still recommend that series, because it focuses on the politics and social dynamics of British, American and German societies quite well.

Apologies for bumping up these three year old comments, but The Pillars of the Earth is my favourite book ever.  I agree that the sequel, World Without End, was not nearly as good.  A Column of Fire was very good.  And now there is a prequel book that has been out for some months now called The Evening and the Morning.

All of Follett's historical fiction is good.  I like the Kingsbridge series the best but I agree his Century Trilogy is good as well.  His standalone books (often set during World War II) are good as well.

I've read a fair amount of Bernard Cornwell's books, although I have never gotten into his Saxon Chronicles series, which is the basis for the Vikings-ripoff TV show "The Last Kingdom".  I read the first one and just didn't care for it.

If you are looking for American history historical fiction, it doesn't get much better than John Jakes.  North and South trilogy, the eight book Kent Family Chronicles, as well as his standalone books.

 

19 hours ago, SmithW6079 said:

I agree. I really don't care for novels using historical characters as main characters. I'm currently trying Allison Weir's Katherine of Aragon novel, but I'm not sure I'll continue. I feel the same way you do -- it's disrespectful. 

I think that's why I've never gotten into the Alison Weir fiction books.  I read her very first one, "Innocent Traitor" about Lady Jane Grey, and found myself thinking I'd rather have read a nonfiction book about Jane Grey.  I read Weir's "Children of Henry VIII" which briefly touched on both Jane and Mary and Edward, but remember thinking that I would much rather have Weir write separate full-length bios on Jane and Mary.

[sugarbaker design]

20 hours ago, SmithW6079 said:

However,  when played for laughs, then I'm fine. One of my favorites sitcoms is "Upstart Crow," a humorous look at the life of William Shakespeare.

Kit Marlowe is my spirit animal!

[Haleth]

1 hour ago, blackwing said:

I've read a fair amount of Bernard Cornwell's books, although I have never gotten into his Saxon Chronicles series, which is the basis for the Vikings-ripoff TV show "The Last Kingdom".  I read the first one and just didn't care for it.

The book The Last Kingdom was published in 2004 and preceded Vikings by several years, so I wouldn’t call it a rip off at all. I’ve read the series and while it is kind of repetitive, it’s still very good. I’d call the show more of a companion series to Vikings since it’s mostly from the Saxon POV. David Dawson as Alfred was superb. 

[SmithW6079]

7 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

I was familiar with Alison Weir's nonfiction, and I enjoyed the ones I did read.  But, her fiction does not work for me.  I also have difficulty reading historical fiction where the author invents plotlines, and her book on Anne of Cleves has that in spades.  There is so much not known about Anne and why she stayed in England after her divorce from Henry VIII that she could have gone in multiple directions, and she went with the most boring and banal reason. 

  Hide contents

In Weir's book about Anne of Cleves, Anne has a secret lover and secret pregnancy.  There is nothing in the historical record that supports this.  If Weir was so adamant to create new characters, why not do something a bit more original, and have Anne fall in love with one of her English ladies in waiting.  

 

Re the spoiler: She seriously wrote that?!

I thought I had read that a condition of Anne's annulment and status as "King's Sister" was that she remain in England or forfeit her settlement. Also, by staying in England, she was her own woman. Returning to Cleves would have put her under the thumb of her brother and perhaps back on the royal marriage market.

4 hours ago, blackwing said:

I think that's why I've never gotten into the Alison Weir fiction books.  I read her very first one, "Innocent Traitor" about Lady Jane Grey, and found myself thinking I'd rather have read a nonfiction book about Jane Grey.  I read Weir's "Children of Henry VIII" which briefly touched on both Jane and Mary and Edward, but remember thinking that I would much rather have Weir write separate full-length bios on Jane and Mary.

I've enjoyed Weir's nonfiction too, but reading of the outrageous plots she makes up for her novels (of the very people she's written biographies about) makes me doubt her nonfiction now. 

You've all convinced me not to continue with the Katherine of Aragon novel.

Edited July 7, 2021 by SmithW6079

[Danny Franks]

21 hours ago, SmithW6079 said:

Re the spoiler: She seriously wrote that?!

I thought I had read that a condition of Anne's annulment and status as "King's Sister" was that she remain in England or forfeit her settlement. Also, by staying in England, she was her own woman. Returning to Cleves would have put her under the thumb of her brother and perhaps back on the royal marriage market.

I've enjoyed Weir's nonfiction too, but reading of the outrageous plots she makes up for her novels (of the very people she's written biographies about) makes me doubt her nonfiction now. 

You've all convinced me not to continue with the Katherine of Aragon novel.

Weir has editorialised quite a bit in her nonfiction as well. Her book on Richard III has a lot of assumptions and motives she ascribes to people based on those assumptions.

That's fine for fiction, as long as there are historical notes at the end explaining which parts were made up. But I don't rate her as a historian at all.

Edited July 7, 2021 by Danny Franks

[Haleth]

Oops. Never mind. This topic is for fiction. 

Edited July 7, 2021 by Haleth

[Which Tyler]

On 7/6/2021 at 9:54 PM, Haleth said:

The book The Last Kingdom was published in 2004 and preceded Vikings by several years, so I wouldn’t call it a rip off at all. I’ve read the series and while it is kind of repetitive, it’s still very good. I’d call the show more of a companion series to Vikings since it’s mostly from the Saxon POV. David Dawson as Alfred was superb. 

 

[Haleth]

Well that ^ is good news. It’s a wonderful take on the Arthur legends. More history than fantasy. 

[blackwing]

I'm on the second book of Conn Iggulden's five-book Emperor series about Julius Caesar.  I am enjoying it a lot.  I read his four-book "Wars of the Roses" series and loved it.  I see he has a new series set in Ancient Greece which I want to read eventually as well.

I'd like to read Bernard Cornwell's "The Winter King" series too.  Too much to read, not enough time!

[thosme]

I reread "Hawaii" by James Michener this week.  I used to read it once every boring summer vacation in high school because it took a long time.  That was about 58 or so years ago.  Anyway I  enjoyed it this time too.