The Queen of Subtleties

by Suzannah Dunn

Anne Boleyn and Lucy queen and
confectioner, fatefully linked in a court
rife with intrigue and treachery She was the dark-eyed English beauty who captivated King Henry VIII, only to die at his behest three years after they were married. She was both manipulator and pawn, a complex, misunderstood mélange of subtlety and fire. Her name was Anne Boleyn. In The Queen of Subtleties , Suzannah Dunn reimagines the rise and fall of the tragic queen through two alternating that of Anne herself, who is penning a letter to her young daughter on the eve of her execution, and Lucy Cornwallis, the king's confectioner. An employee of the highest status, Lucy is responsible for creating the sculpted sugar centerpieces that adorn each of the feasts marking Anne's ascent in the king's favor. They also share another link of which neither woman is the lovely Mark Smeaton, wunderkind musician—the innocent on whom, ultimately, Anne's downfall hinges.

Genres: Historical Fiction, Fiction, Historical, Tudor Period, British Literature, 16th Century, Royalty

468 pages, Hardcover

First published September 14, 2004

About the author

Suzannah Dunn was born in London, and grew up in the village of Northaw in Hertfordshire (for Tudor ‘fans’: Northaw Manor was the first married home of Bess Hardwick, in the late 1540s). Having lived in Brighton for nineteen years, she now lives in Shropshire. Her novel about Anne Boleyn (The Queen of Subtleties) was followed by The Sixth Wife, on Katherine Parr, and The Queen's Sorrow, set during the reign of Mary Tudor, ‘Bloody Mary’, England’s first ruling queen. Her forthcoming novel – to be published in hardback in May 2010 – is The Confession of Katherine Howard. Prior to writing about the Tudors, she published five contemporary-set novels and two collections of stories. She has enjoyed many years of giving talks and teaching creative writing (from six weeks as ‘writer in residence’ on the Richard and Judy show, to seven years as Programme Director of Manchester University’s MA in Novel Writing).

Reviews

[Iryna *Book and Sword* · Rating 1 out of 5]

Look for the nearest dumpster because this is garbage! Trash. Total trash.
I'm rude and I'm not even sorry. How this book ever got published I have absolutely no idea.

I was really in the mood for a Tudor era novel. I found this book in the library book sale for 50cents, and let me tell you - it's not even worth that.

Normally, I have the rule if I don't reach the 100 page mark, I don't rate the book, but in this case I am more than happy to make an exception and give this 1 star (even though it doesn't even deserve that).

So what went wrong here? Well, everything, but mostly the writing and the content.

Writing
This reads like a trashy romance fanfic (minus the actual romance). The author obviously has no idea how people of that era spoke, so it's full of modern slang and curse words.
Anne Boleyn's favorite word is apparently "damn".
King Henry has words such as "skedaddle" in his vocabulary.
Anne's cousin just tells her to "f@ck off" and so on.

Content
Just as the author has no idea how to write in the language of Tudor era, it is more than clear that she also has no idea about the history itself. The events are short and brisk - it literally feels as if the information was taken from "quick history notes" or something of that sort. Names are just thrown around without any explanation who is who and where they came from - I was so confused the whole time.

In conclusion - don't waste your time. I only read 48 pages, but it was more than enough to realize what a joke this book is. Will definitely be un-hauling this.
BLEH!

Read in 2018

My WEBSITE
My INSTAGRAM
My WORDPRESS BLOG

[Madeline · Rating 1 out of 5]

I'll be honest - I didn't finish this book. I didn't even get halfway through it, actually, so maybe something really surprising and interesting happened at the end - I have no idea, but I don't really care.
My main problem with this book was that the author attempted to paint Anne Boleyn as a good person who was just an innocent victim of her family's ambitions. Bullshit. Yeah, Anne's family was ambitious, but there's only so much a person can be forced to do. Anne was an intelligent, driven, confident bitch, and she knew exactly what she was doing every second of every day, and Henry was putty in her crafty little hands. In this book, however, Henry falls in love with Anne all by himself, and she actually ignores him - and not because she's being coy, either.
The story has two narrators -Anne, and the king's confectionary cook, for some odd reason. I think I stopped reading the book soon after I realized that the cook was going to be a regular character in the story, and that I didn't give a crap about her.
The language used in the book was also distracting. In a sad attempt to make the story accessible to modern readers, the author has her characters talk like they live in modern times. There's a right way and a wrong way to do this - the wrong way is to take the modern-language thing so far that the people in the book start to sound like characters on One Tree Hill. Honestly: Anne actually says in her narration that Henry "fell for me." Um...no.

[Iset · Rating 2 out of 5]

The first thing that struck me about The Queen of Subtleties was the distinctly modern tone. Not a glaring issue, it nonetheless just didn’t feel quite right. Of course all historical fiction novels are ‘translations’ into modern language – no one expects a Tudor novel to be written in Shakespeare’s English, or a Roman novel to be written in Latin – but there are certain unspoken rules, such as avoiding using idioms or slang that is characteristic of later eras. It’s not a big issue here, let me stress that; Dunn doesn’t have Henry VIII talking about electricity or Wolsey saying ‘innit’. But she does have Anne Boleyn telling Henry “you should stop giving me presents” and “it’s not you, it’s me”, and that just felt too modern. I agreed with the sentiments – historically this does seem to be how Anne felt about Henry initially – and I’m not saying I expect her to say things like; ‘forsooth, verily leave me be’, but turns of phrase like “it’s not you, it’s me” are too well known in modern relationship lingo to feel like they belong in a Tudor novel. This gets worse as the novel progresses: Anne Boleyn outright swears at Henry VIII; both Anne and Henry were religious and Henry in particular found lewd talk extremely distasteful, an opinion he was very vocal about; there is just no way that Anne would have spoken to Henry the way she does in this novel, and as a result this book is just not as believable as it could have been; all because of the language used being so anachronistically modern.

The same thing occurs with character names. In the author’s note Dunn plainly states that “diminutives of names have been used to avoid confusion (between, for example, the many Henrys and Francises, Marys and Elizabeths) or to avoid a dated version (Meg Shelton was in fact known as Madge, and Betsy Blount as Bessie).” However, I disagree with this particular authorial decision. “Meg”, with the current popularity in recent years of the name Megan, unfortunately comes off as modern-sounding, and “Betsy” is reminiscent of the 1940s so it feels a little strange that the author should have substituted it in when “Bessie” is so timeless. Half the time Madge Shelton was “Meg Shelston” and half the time she was “Meg Shelton” too. Furthermore, Thomas Wyatt becomes “Tommy”, William Brereton becomes “Billy”, Edward Fox is “Eddie”, Charles Brandon is “Charlie”, and Francis Weston becomes “Franky”, all of which sat very jarringly for me, and Henry VIII’s son, Henry Fitzroy, becomes “Fitz” without explanation. I understand that Dunn is trying to make matters less confusing, but there’s no scene where Henry Fitzroy is introduced by his full name and thereafter referred to as “Fitz”, he’s just “Fitz” from the get go, which I think is more confusing. It actually took more time to think who on earth she was talking about when she used these diminutives than had she used their real names, because I’m so used to these people’s real names. Anne Boleyn even refers to her parents as “Mum” and “Dad”. I get that Dunn wants to portray that the Boleyns have a close relationship, and I’m fairly confident that historically the real Boleyns were a close-knit family, but I’m equally sure that at this period children, especially noble children, did not call their parents “Mum” and “Dad” – it would have been “Mother” and “Father”, or perhaps “Mama” or “Ma” and “Papa” or “Pa” as diminutives. Again, I understand Dunn’s reasons for wanting to use diminutives, but one has to be careful when giving characters of the same name nicknames in historical fiction to distinguish them – the nicknames themselves cannot sound too anachronistic, and should be as much as possible in keeping with the era, even if that means not using diminutives but some sort of epithet gained on a past adventure or a descriptive of their appearance.

There’s a fair bit of historical inaccuracy aside from the anachronistic language. Dunn covers a few points in her author’s note; she reveals that she changed one of Henry’s jousting mottoes from “Declare je nos” to “No Comment”, that she has Elizabeth Howard in the Tower with Anne instead of her aunt Elizabeth Boleyn, that she has Henry Norris break the news of the king’s fall to Anne instead of her uncle the Duke of Norfolk, and she changes the name of Anne’s dog from Purkoy to “Pixie”. Again, props to Dunn for openly revealing this in her author’s note, but what isn’t made clear is why. No reason is given for why Dunn found it necessary to change Purkoy’s name to Pixie, and indeed it’s such an irrelevant point that it seems totally unnecessary to me to change it at all, to change any of those points; the “No Comment” one is the worst change though, because it sounds far too modern again, a phrase arising out of the media-laden 20th century. However, unfortunately there are other inaccuracies lurking in the book that Dunn doesn’t tell us about. The ship The Mary Boleyn and Anne's date of birth are under debate, but the big one was Lucy and Richard’s conversation about going to Nonsuch Palace in a chapter dated 1535. Nonsuch Palace didn’t even begin construction until 1538, and it was still incomplete in 1556. I know dates about buildings are difficult to remember, but this is an easy one because Henry VIII commissioned it in the aftermath of his third wife, Jane Seymour’s death, naming it thus since it was such a remarkable design there would be “none such” like it anywhere. In any case, we once again – for my third book in a row now, worse luck – have a case of two clicks on Wikipedia rectifying this little mistake. Tomatoes in ancient Egypt? Tea in the Trojan War? Nonsuch Palace miraculously appearing in 1535?

These things are annoying, admittedly, but not enough to totally drag this book down. I’ll grant Dunn hit upon a novel idea by interweaving Anne Boleyn’s story with that of Mrs Cornwallis, the king’s confectioner. Although Dunn obviously had to invent almost everything she writes about Lucy, I rather enjoyed the indulgence of lavishing my imagination all over those descriptions of marvellous fairytale sugar subtleties, and I did wonder how Lucy’s story would tie in. Lucy’s naivety was a little irritating and unbelievable, but I could deal with it as I wondered what would come of the intertwining of these two stories. What would come of Lucy and Anne’s tales; surely there would be some coming together or perhaps a clever thematic intertwining towards the end? Um… no. Lucy gets a crush on Mark Smeaton, something which is telegraphed from the very first chapter in Lucy’s perspective, and well, we all know how that turns out. But, surely, Lucy will learn something from all this, there’ll be some sort of growth of character or renewal, won’t there? Nope. We leave things with Lucy when her apprentice, Richard, tells her he’s getting out of all this nasty business at court and seeking a fresh start in London. Is Lucy going to leave behind her life as the king’s confectioner too, saddened over the loss of Mark and determined to “go out and live her own life” and settle down like she has been talking about with Mark for almost the entire book? No. She stays, and that’s it. It’s not a bad ending, but I expected more. It’s like an unfinished sentence, it just sort of hangs there.

The book is quite well-written, nothing to wow me but competent and readable enough, but the modern dialogue and use of diminutives mars it. Throw in a couple of accuracy bloopers, and historical alterations that are stated openly but seem unnecessary and don’t really make any sense, plus to finish it off a fictional story that doesn’t really go anywhere at the end… and it all feels a little odd. Not bad, but not quite right either. I was perhaps most disappointed in Dunn’s portrayal of Anne Boleyn. At first I was quite hopeful; Dunn gets much closer to the true Anne in the beginning of the book when she shows her initially refusing the king’s advances, not wanting to get involved, but slowly coming round as they find intellectual and conversational matches in each other. I was relieved not to be reading about another Anne such as Philippa Gregory and Hilary Mantel portray – from a slimy, ambitious family willing to pimp out their daughters for favours, pretty much from the start out to win the crown, relentless cruel and spiteful. Unfortunately this Anne descends into the Mean Girl Anne stereotype later on in the novel, characterised by her anachronistic foul mouth and absolutely shocking vitriolic behaviour – I actually understood why Henry is this book wanted to rid himself of her, though of course he does so in a despicably selfish, cold manner. The real Anne, it is known, did on rare occasion let her temper get the better of her, but it wasn’t a frequent event and she certainly wasn’t swearing like the trooper she is here. That doesn’t justify the frequent portrayals of her in recent years as a harpy from hell – for goodness’ sakes, in my family we’ve had blazing rows over who drank the last of the milk, we can hardly infer that Anne Boleyn was so poisonously nasty from a mere handful of reported arguments over the course of several years of her life. She doesn’t deserve the spiteful harridan stereotype she’s been given in many historical novels.

All in all, an odd book with some promising ideas and reasonably well-written, but brought down by strange authorial decisions, anachronistic language, and the second fictional plot that ultimately doesn’t lead anywhere.

4 out of 10

[Bethany · Rating 1 out of 5]

RUN! RUN FAST! Is there a way to give negative stars? Less than one? This was one of the WORST things I've ever read! Ludicrous, poorly written, and full of modern slang and phraseology. Yuck, yuck, yuck!

[L'aura · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'll just come out of the closet: unlike the, uhm, apparently 90% of the people who read this book, I liked it. The novel follows, in parallel, the story of Anne Boleyn and that of Lucy Cornwallis, the court's confectioner, so basically a kitchen employee. The chapters are written by Anne and Lucy's POVs alternately, and in contrast to nearly every piece of historical fiction you'll ever read the two aren't friends--actually they never have any exchange: Lucy simply makes pastries for Anne and the court to eat. The only trait d'union between the two is Mark Smeaton, who knows both, and that's about it. Lucy is s witness to Anne's time and merely provides a different point of view. Two interesting things: first off, Lucy isn't a fictional character, as Dunn points out at the end of the book. It's refreshing, because I'm sick of made out Mary Sues saving the day in fiction. Second aspect-- I really liked Anne's POV. I thought it was in character, realistic, and particularly poignant in her last chapter, a letter to Elizabeth. So there it is, I'll go back in my hidden corner.

[Noella · Rating 3 out of 5]

Dit boek heeft veel slechte reviews gekregen op goodreads. Ik vond het nochtans niet slecht. Het is vlot leesbaar en het vertelt het verhaal van Anne Boleyn vanuit twee gezichtspunten Het eerste is in de vorm van een lange brief die Anne schrijft aan haar dochtertje Elisabeth, het tweede is dat van de suikerbakkerin Lucy Cornwallis.
Ik kon me echter in geen van de personages echt inleven. Als de situatie die beschreven werd niet zo ernstig was, zou ik de gedachten en sommige uitspraken van Anne wel grappig gevonden hebben. De woordkeus bedoel ik dus. Sommige reviewers schreven dat ze zich bv. Hendrik niet konden voorstellen bij sommige zogezegde uitspraken die hij zou gedaan hebben. Ik denk dat je dit met een korreltje zout moet nemen. Het boek is geschreven in een moderne stijl, en natuurlijk spraken (en dachten) de mensen in de 16de eeuw in andere bewoordingen, maar de bedoeling zal wel ongeveer hetzelfde geweest zijn.
Dus een drie en geen vier door de magere diepgang, maar geen twee door de vlotte leesbaarheid.

[Cate's Book Nut Hut · Rating 1 out of 5]

I picked this up in the local thrift store, and it will be heading back there just as quickly as it came home. After my seemingly bad run of luck with books recently, I was hoping that an historical piece of fiction might help break the dam; it was not going to happen with this book and, to be honest I didn’t finish it either.

I had many issues with the book as far as I read. The character of Anne Boleyn was rather insulting when compared to what is known of her from historical documents. In this interpretation of her character she is portrayed as being the innocent pawn of her Families’ ambitions to rise higher within the Tudor Court, rather than the driven and confident woman that readers are used to. As one of the narrators of the book, the language she uses is far too modern for the time period in which it is set, and this was the reason for my not finishing the book. The language used by both Anne and the other narrator was extremely distracting and, I can’t help but feel the Author wrote this book in this manner to make her work more accessible to the modern reader.

I wish I could say something good about the contents of this book, but the only saving grace about it for me was the cover image, which I kept returning to look at time and again and this was the reason for my 1 thumb review. I will not be reading anything else by this Author, and find it a hard book to recommend to anyone who enjoys a good historical novel.


Originally reviewed on: http://catesbooknuthut.com/2015/02/13...





This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

[J Jahir · Rating 3 out of 5]

2.75.
qué decir... regular para mí. de no ser porque pesqué algunos hechos históricos previos me habría resultado más pesado, de por sí lo sentí tedioso. Es de esos libros a los que debes prestarle una atención absoluta para ir siguiendo el hilo de todo lo que acontece, sobre todo porque fácilmente hay una intercalación de los puntos de vista de Lucy y de Ana Bolena. Además, todo es contado para su hija, Isabel, como un recordatorio de lo que fue su historia antes de llegar ella al mundo. No será un libro tan trascendental, y créanme que una vez pasen días o semanas muy seguramente se me borren los personajes secundarios! con trabajo me acordaré de los de ana y lucy jajaja.
Aún así no la sentí tan atrayente ni me generó tanta fuerza en la historia como me hubiera gustado.

[Juli · Rating 2 out of 5]

La verdad es que es un libro con el que no pude conectar, es más historia que otra cosa. Y no soy muy fanática de la historia de "la realeza".

Se me hizo lento y pesado, y me gusto poco y nada

[нєνєℓ ¢ανα · Rating 3 out of 5]

A different perspective for Anne Boleyn...

[Kat · Rating 1 out of 5]

I picked this novel up at the Lifeline Bookfest for $4. I did not get value for money.

Let me begin by saying that I enjoy all types of historical fiction. I have room in my bookshelf for cerebral lit like Wolf Hall, the narrative styling of Jean Plaidy, and the more historically playful (ha) works of Philippa Gregory. I do not judge a book for playing with history, for invention for the sake of enjoyment.

This is just a bad book.

The idea was so promising, a novel about a character in history with an interesting profession! Confectioner! I wondered, how did a woman get that job? What went into making each wonderful confection? What was her relationship (if any) to the greats of the day? This book only answered one of these questions, and answered it poorly.

First, Lucy is a character with little depth and less backstory. Not all books need to be Wolf Hall in terms of showing the everyday work of a character, but some description of her life and times would have made the novel so much more memorable. Second, her tiny interludes with Henry seem out of place and meaningless. If we learn nothing about either character, why would this scene take place?

Third, the plot is so thin it is practically see through. By the end of the story, I could not believe that was where our main character was being left. Nothing had actually happened to her, physically, spiritually, or mentally, aside from a broken heart. She is just left sadder, with the departure of her equally poorly written (and fairly unlikeable) apprentice.

I have not mentioned the Anne side of the plot, as it has been rightfully critiqued by other reviewers so well. The anachronisms are too much for even me to ignore. My great concern is that by splitting the story between Lucy and Anne, the author leaves little time for much plot at all. Unlike the excellent work of Sherry Jones ("Four Sisters, All Queens"), the plots barely intertwine.

In short, this novel is really two books...but I don't think I want to read either.

[Kathleen · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Queen of Subtleties, which I persistently misspell, is a novel about Anne Boleyn and her rise and fall in Henry VIII's court, as told through a letter Anne is writing to her daughter and... I guess the first-person testimony of Henry's chief confectioner, Lucy Cornwallis. I picked it up because Dunn just had another book come out, The May Bride, about Jane Seymour, and I saw this and The Confessions of Katherine Howard and picked them both up while I was at it.

This book is... okay? The story is quite well told, and I did somewhat like Dunn's take on Anne, a straightforward and not-dissembling woman in a court of sneaky people. Anne enjoys the company of men more than women, and seems to genuinely like if not love Henry. She is also calculating, manipulative, and cynical. I do feel that Dunn missed another dimension of Anne's character, the deeply religious and fervent woman, and of course Dunn opted for the Anne of the Thousand Days interpretation where Henry pursues an initially reluctant Anne on his own. That's debatable, I suppose.

Lucy Cornwallis is also an interesting character, but I must say, I don't really know why she's in this book? Her story didn't seem to add much to Anne's, and of course the two never met; their stories only connect through the person of Mark Smeaton. Still, she's a fascinating character, and I did like the look into confectionary of the period.

My main problem with this book was the excessively modern tone. Anne used expressions such as "no way" and "partied," and refers to her parents as "Mum and Dad" and Katherine of Aragon as "Fat Cath." It just seemed completely out of keeping with the rest of the book.

So, you know, it's kind of eh. If you liked The Tudors, it might be worth a read; just be aware that the dialogue and writing is far more suited to modern-day chicklit than to historical fiction.

[MichelleCH · Rating 2 out of 5]

Ditto to what others have said. The tone was way too modern.

I laughed out-loud when Henry told everyone to skedaddle so that he could be alone with Anne. The image in my head was priceless, I doubt it was what the author was intending. Henry is a poor, befuddled mess and thank goodness Anne is there to save the day. She knows how to handle Wolsey, the divorce and home renovations.

Anne also liberally uses the F-word and yes, even to Henry. Funny thing is that this word might not have been in use at that time; and if so, was so taboo that it wasn’t even written down. I doubt Anne bandied it about so casually in conversation. “You f…. promised Henry!” She also has a nickname for the Queen, “Fat Cat’. Could Anne be on The Real Housewives? I think yes.

So the story alternates between Anne’s modern point of view and that of the confectioner for the King, Lucy Cornwallis. Her every moment is spent in spinning sugar treats – a few chapters in, I really wondered if anyone had any teeth left. Lucy also develops this rather weird and not very plausible relationship with Mark Smeaton, who comes by just to shoot the breeze in his fancy doublet. Maybe this is how they roll on Wisteria Lane.

Another bizarre twist is that Alison Weir gives it thumbs up!

[Lois · Rating 3 out of 5]

Um, I did not like this book. The first few chapters were pretty good because it was being told by Anne herself. Then it switched around to the other narrator and I just did not care for it.
**** I am now re-reading this novel and finding that I may have been too hasty in my previous judgement.
This book was slow paced and slow moving for my taste-but the first person pov of Anne Boleyn was wonderful. She is protrayed as a strong wlled, strong minded lady who at first was not at all interested in becoming the King's love interest. As time passed and his devotion to her grew rather than dimmed, she kind of grew to love him. I have no doubt after reading this book that Anne loved Henry nor any doubt that he loved her in return-for a brief time anyway.
An interesting point is made in the novel by Anne-she says that Henry did not divorce Katherine because of Anne (the possibility of setting Queen Katherine had been thrown around at court long before Anne became a player) but that he did divorce Katherine for her.
The other character in the book-Lucy-was the kings confectioner. It put me in the mind of the Food Networks Ace of Cakes.

[Lori · Rating 3 out of 5]

I've read numerous books on Anne Boleyn and I enjoyed this well told version. Told in the first person as Anne writing to her young daughter, Elizabeth, on the eve of her execution. It also brought in another perspective, that of the king's confectioner which added interesting tidbits. Overall, a well told story.

[Mary Corbal · Rating 5 out of 5]

La trama se cuenta desde el punto de vista de Ana Bolena, que se muestra como una mujer egoísta, vanidosa e inteligente; mientras que Enrique VIII es un personaje veleidoso, que solamente se preocupa de su propio bienestar e interés. Muy recomendable para quienes les atraiga este periodo en la historia de Inglaterra, y además es bastante ameno como literatura de ficción.

[SeaBae · Rating 3 out of 5]

I bought this book when it was new in paperback, read a chaper of two, put it down, and never came back - until now, when I'm on another Tudor kick.

Suzannah Dunn is not exactly my favorite historical fiction author. I remember being very irritated with The Sixth Wife, and some of what annoyed me about that book is present here. Dunn just doesn't seem to like her characters very much. It's as if she looked around, saw that Phillipa Gregory and others were making bank with their Tudor-set books, thought "Well, I write better than THEM," and appropriated the time period without really having a deep interest or affinity for the story she is telling - other than the money it might bring in. I'm sure I'm doing her a disservice, but there's something so cold and calculated about the writing that I can't help the feeling.

The title is slightly misleading. The book has two narrators: Anne Boleyn, on the eve of her execution, writing a letter to Elizabeth; and Lucy Cornwallis, confectioner to Henry VIII. However, while each woman might be called Queen - Lucy rules her sugar kingdom far more effectively than Anne ever attempted to rule England - neither is exactly subtle.

There are various overly used Anne Boleyn tropes in historical fiction, and here Dunn picks Anne the Royal Bitch. Her Anne is two-dimensional: self-centered, jaded, calculating and bitter. She doesn't love Henry. But when he makes his amorous intentions known, Anne has no intention of being his plaything ala her sister Mary, so hey, let's put him off and see just how far he will go to have her. And, y'know, being Queen sounds nice, especially since Catherine of Aragon is such a fat old ugly pious thing and doesn't England deserve a pretty, glamorous Queen who can bear sons? (Seriously, in this book it seems that most of Anne's ambition is solely focused on spiting Catherine and her daughter Mary. Forget raising her family to wealth and the peerage; forget that Anne believed in religious reform.)

Lucy Cornwallis, on the other hand, couldn't be further from Anne. She's naive to the point of stupidity. She's a very talented confectioner, who can mold incredible sugar subtleties that awe and stun the court, but even though she has a maid, a groom, and a foster child/apprentice, Lucy is as unworldly about basic human interactions as a newborn colt. We're to believe that a reasonably attractive young woman - the only woman in Henry's kitchens - has never been courted, kissed, or had a friend. Even her apprentice holds her (or is held) at arm's length. That changes, however, when musician Mark Smeaton decides to hang out in her kitchen. Poor Lucy develops a crush on him, to the sly amusement/horror of her apprentice who is far more tuned in to the mood of the court (and speaking of her apprentice - how thick IS Lucy, not to realize just what he and his "friend" Silvester are up to?) And of course, any reader with a smidgen of knowledge about Tudor history knows instantly how a relationship with Mark Smeaton will end.

Lucy's main external goal is to create a lifelike red sugar rose, which stymies her as red food coloring is not available in Tudor England. When Smeaton, oblivious to Lucy's feelings (there are a lot of oblivious people in this book) confesses he's in love with La Boleyn, Lucy tells him to tell Anne (because, as it already established, Lucy is jaw-droppingly clueless.) Lucy gives Mark her finest creation, the red rose, to give to Anne. Does he? Dunno. Don't think so. Whole thing is dropped. Which makes the reader think: why should I care about these characters and their lives, if the author can't be arsed to follow through on her own themes and images? Not that I'm asking to be hit over the head - I can do subtext as well as the next person and there's something very nice to be said about using impermanent sugar, molded into artificial shapes meant to echo nature, as a metaphor for love and lust in Henry VIII's court. But I wouldn't mind knowing the fate of Lucy's rose.

For all her thickness, I found the Lucy portions of the book much more compelling than the Anne sections. Dunn has nothing new to say about Anne, and her chapters mostly consist of Anne giving a linear recitation of her life events. The Lucy chapters, on the other hand, take place mostly during Anne's last year as Queen, and focus more on Lucy's work in the kitchens, which is a fascinating and a relatively fresh facet of Tudor history. Unfortunately, Lucy is a dull dishwater color of a character and her naïveté is just too much for me to suspend disbelief and swallow.

I didn't mind Dunn's use of very modern language, although it does jar at times, especially when Anne talks of her exes or her Mum or partying all night. But the Anne here is nothing more than a bad chick lit character, focused on getting even with the girl who used to rule high school - I mean, England - and buying pretty dresses and having fun with her friends and brother so really, how else should she speak? I was just happy Anne didn't send notes to Henry reading, "OMG, Catherine is such a bee-yatch! TTYL xx"

But, yeah, this is definitely not a book for Tudor purists.

[Sarah M · Rating 3 out of 5]

Quite interesting but also a bit of a slog at times.
I also didn’t like that after reading about Lucy for the entire book there wasn’t an ending to her story.

[chucklesthescot · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is the second book by this author that I have tried and the second one that I am disappointed with. Yet this one had the potential to be a good book, so I'm even more frustrated with it.

The story is told from two viewpoints-Lucy, the royal sweet maker, and Anne Boleyn writing a letter on the eve of her execution to her beloved daughter Elizabeth. And this was the immediate problem with the book. The chapters featuring Anne's story were very enjoyable and I rattled along in the story, quite happy with what I was reading. I didn't really mind the more modern language...I found it amusing when Anne was using f bombs to Henry like a harpie! I always like reading novels about Anne because she is such a fascinating woman and this version was no different. But then we were back to Lucy's chapter and I was nearly slipping into a coma with the boredom.

Lucy was endlessly in the kitchen making something sweet for Henry while the whining figure of Mark Smeaton hung around there, moaning on about how Henry treated Anne. What the hell was the point in this story? Lucy never did anything interesting, she was boring and Smeaton came across as being a complete clown who seemed to have plenty time to waste hanging around the kitchen instead of doing his job as a musician. Every time we left Anne to go back to Lucy and Mark, I started to yawn. By the third Lucy chapter, I decided to just skip these chapters and concentrate on reading about Anne. The other serious irritation was the timeline as we changed chapters. You read about Lucy and Mark in 1535 discussing Henry's affair with Madge when Anne was pregnant, then the next chapter goes back to Anne in 1527 when Henry first mentions divorcing Catherine. So there is no flow to the story, no consistancy and it just felt like a mess to me.

And then we had the name changes which really did my head in. The author explains that she has changed names to avoid confusion or the use of dated names. OK I think the readers understand the difference between Henry the King, Henry Percy the lover and Henry Norris, the alleged adulterer! As for the author's aversion to using dated names, this turned the book into a farce. We had Harry for Henry, Tommy Wyatt, Franky Weston, Betsy Blount instead of Bessie, Meg instead of Madge, Billy Brereton...oh please! Just use the correct names already! Every time 'Nick' or 'Charlie' was mentioned I had to stop and think who this was again. Very confusing indeed. And there was the deliberate invention for no apparent reason of having Henry Norris telling Anne about Henry's fall instead of the Duke of Norfolk. For a start, Norris was one of the King's closest servants and would have been attending the injured King, not giving news like that to the Queen.

I would've given it three stars for the Anne Boleyn story but the Lucy non story barely deserves a mention, never mind a star so I cannot give the whole book more than two. Disappointing Tudor novel.

[Redfox5 · Rating 3 out of 5]

I've read a couple of books by Suzannah Dunn and really enjoyed them. This one didn't pull me in as much which is a shame as it's a retelling of my favorite story.

It's hard to retell a story that's been told so many times and she does try and put a different twist on it by introducing Lucy Cornwallis with her own side story. While it's interesting to know about Lucy, she was the only female working in the Tudor Kitchens. Her lust with Mark Smeaton isn't that believable. And after watching Showtime's 'The Tudors'. I can't picture Mark being straight.

Anne's story is captivating as always and I like how her point of view chapters were in the past and Lucy's were in the present. She was also talking as if to Elizabeth so it's done in the knowledge of hindsight.

I finally had the chance to actually read in the sunshine! And because of this finished the book very quickly. It then put me in a Tudor mood and I had to watch the film 'Anne Of A Thousand Days' to which my boyfriend was like "How many times do you watch this story!?" Lots. I'm obsessed.

[Brittany Gillen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Over the years, I have read tons of books about Henry VIII and his six wives. I can’t get enough it seems. I picked up this book because I was intrigued by the idea of hearing Anne Boleyn’s story through the eyes of the King’s confectioner. However, this book didn’t quite work for two reasons.

1) Half the book was told from Anne’s perspective, and because the author tried to include every detail, it was like watching a movie in fast forward. Nothing sticks, or has any emotional resonance. Less would have been so much more.

2) The Lucy sections, the confectioner, suffered from wicked, disorderly time jumps. Back and forth in time on a single page. As a result, Lucy failed to solidify as a relatable character.

Overall, all the interesting facts were there, but the emotional connection got lost. If I didn’t already know the facts, I might have enjoyed it more, but since I did, it lacked the luster I was hoping to enjoy.

[Nancy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Like Jo Baker's Longbourn, a re-telling of Pride and Prejudice from the point of view of a servant of the Bennets, this is a fictional re-telling of the life of Anne Boleyn from the point of view of a kitchen servant named Lucy Cornwallis. Lucy is the King's chief confectioner, a highly skilled and important position, not just because the Tudor royal court loved its sweetmeats, but because the ingredients that went into making these (sugar, ginger) were rare and consequently very expensive. The Anne Boleyn story doesn't really have anything much new to it (thus the three stars), but I loved whenever we were in the kitchen with Lucy (four stars for the detailed descriptions of the kitchens and the fine art and technology of making "subtleties").

[Cindy · Rating 1 out of 5]

Not my favorite telling of the story of Anne Boleyn. I was intrigued by the premise of Anne writing a letter to her daughter Elizabeth while shut in the Tower prior to her death... but the slang of today used in the dialogue was very irritating. I was also intrigued by the parallel story of Lucy Cornwallis, but found her narratives boring and I was often tempted to skip right over them. I think Dunn's ideas for a new twist on a well known story were good, just poorly executed.

[Sue · Rating 1 out of 5]

The number 1 WORST novel about the Tudor period EVER. I hated this so much. If I could give it no stars, I would. I don't want to go into details about WHY it is so bad, because I feel that I have wasted enough time on this book already.

[Sheila Starrett · Rating 2 out of 5]

This story could've been so very much better...! It had a lot of potential but was lacking.

[Katie · Rating 2 out of 5]

It took a hot minute to get into this. I almost put it back on my shelf 60 pages in but kept going- and i’m glad I did!

[Carole Rae · Rating 2 out of 5]

This has certainly been collecting dust on my shelf for a while now. I don't even remember what used book store I bought this from! Eeek. Thank goodness for the TBR pile reading challenge I signed up for in 2022.

We follow Anne Boleyn and Lucy Cornwallis. One is the Queen of England and the other is a queen confectioner. They are fatefully linked in a court rife with intrigue and treachery.

The fate of Anne Boleyn always hits me pretty hard. I have always had a strong connection with her. Her life was tragic...all the wives of Henry VIII were tragic in some way. He was a toxic man of his time. I think he was partially insane if you want my honest opinion.

But this was very different. Not only do we get Anne's story told from her own pen, but we get to see Lucy Cornwallis. According to the author in the notes, Lucy is loosely based on an actual "Mrs. Cornwallis" that was a confectioner. She was the only woman in the household's two hundred kitchen staff. How fun! Don't envy her though...what a terrible job being around all that intrigue and treachery. Made me cry when we learn she was in love with Mark. SOBS. I liked Lucy.

I wasn't a huge fan of this depiction of Anne. There were times she seemed TOO cruel. Yes, she spoke her mind and had a temper on her (from what historians can gather), but in the first chapter or two, she was just plain MEAN and LEWD. Like woah! She also was painted as purely innocent at the beginning. Anne knew how to play the game thanks to her education in France. It's true...she didn't want to JUST be a mistress...she wanted to be a wife. Catherine was one step out, so she took that gamble. Sadly...she lost when she couldn't give Henry what she wanted. Was she innocent at the very beginning of the courtship? Maybe at first she didn't want anything to do with Henry, but her ambition and family loyalty won out. Was she innocent of the crimes in the end? Heck ya, but she had her own demons I am sure.

I also really struggled with the modern language. Some sprinkled in is okay. I don't expect this to be purely Tudor-era/Shakespearean talk, BUT play it like the shows and movies do. There were a lot of lewd words that just didn't fit the times or even the characters. At one point Anne flat-out cusses Henry out (which the asshat TOTALLY deserved)....mmmm...it was too much sometimes. I can look past a lot of modern slips in writing, but it for sure crossed the line and I couldn't ignore it.

The ending was good. I loved the last message Anne left for her daughter. THAT is something I can totally see Anne writing down for her kid. It seemed the perfect advice. It made me really sad....Anne would have been SO proud that her kid was able to make it through and be glorious.

All-in-all, this had some good moments. I really loved the change in narration. Lucy was a good character! I really enjoyed learning about Lucy and reading about her journey. I enjoyed some of the bits with this Anne. However, there were just too many modern words and so forth that didn't settle well with me. I'll give this 2 stars.

[KL Caley · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am very surprised by the number of low ratings this book received. Can an author provide a fresh approach to a part of history known by everyone and told to death? Actually yes, I think Dunn made a really good job of it. This book has several stories concealed within its pages all delicately woven together to make the reader turn the pages.

This story as you will probably already have gathered is a story of two halves. Strong-willed, stubborn Anne Boleyn prior to her imminent execution tells her story of her time at the court in the format of a letter to her daughter. The format of the story is quite fun and fiery and I think the author does a good job of getting the reader on Anne’s side. The author then turns the reader's attention to the second storyline of that of the subtle subdued Lucy Cornwallis, confectionary chef to the king. Polar opposite of Anne, Lucy is quiet, humble and dedicated to her crafts.

The women’s stories are very loosely connected by their involvement with the lovely Mark Smeaton, wunderkind musician—the innocent on whom, ultimately, Anne’s downfall hinges.

I must say this is the first Suzannah Dunn book I have read and it pulled me in hook, line and sinker. Her writing style is superb, it’s easy to read, not boringly over-descriptive like some historical fiction novels are (although it captures plenty of historical contexts) and it keeps the story moving at a great pace. Obviously, Anne’s story is the most exciting (which I think is to be expected).

The main reason others seem to be upset with this novel is the modern tone of language used. Granted there are probably some better wording or phrasing that the author could have used here (Henry telling courtiers to skedaddle) and there but overall I found the tone very readable and if it had been told in the language of the Tudor times this would ultimately have made it far less enjoyable for me. So, I guess it is something to be aware of but don’t let it put you off.

Here is a brief extract so that you can see a sample of the writing yourself:

“My uncle never read a book, and he’s proud of the fact. Ruthlessness and efficiency; that’s what matters. He’ll clap you on the back, one day; stab you in it, the next. No hard feelings, just business as usual. Never trust a Howard, Elizabeth, not even if you are one. Look where it got me, sent here to the Tower by my own uncle.”

I think Dunn has done a great job of capturing the period, the courts, all the moving and touring, and of course the feasts. Fun and interesting concepts that make this book a delight to read.

A fantastic novelist! Cannot wait to read many more of her works.

Please leave a like if you think my review/feedback of the item was helpful to you. Alternatively, please contact me if you want me to clarify something in my review.

[Lauren · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm going to be honest here. The writing was fine & I didn't mind the flipping between narrators. Here's the thing: One narrator was Lucy Cornwallis, confectioner for the king, & she was essentially telling her story in "real time". The other narrator was Anne Boleyn & she was telling her story in a letter to her daughter Elizabeth. So Anne's portion was going over past events while being held in the Tower of London. One flaw in this book was having to keep up with who was telling what story when.

Secondly, the book felt like it was dragging towards the end. I kept having a "C'mon. Get on with it" kind of feeling.

For the most part, this was a good book & the story was interesting. I mean, it's essentially the story of Anne Boleyn's downfall. How isn't that interesting?! (Basically - if you're looking for a happy ending, this is not your book. Historically speaking, it does not end well for Anne Boleyn.)

I also did like that one of the narrators was a servant (the confectioner/Lucy). Kind of a high-low mix of viewpoints. But why Lucy & not her assistant Richard? I ask because it seemed like Richard had more access to the action than Lucy did, since she was always in the kitchen working on the various subtleties & sweets for Henry VIII's table. On the flip side, Lucy did have conversations with Mark Smeaton (one of the men accused of having affairs with Anne Boleyn, tried for treason as a consequence, & subsequently put to death).

[Christine · Rating 2 out of 5]

I only gave this two stars because I love to read anything about the Tudors but after reading the wonderful Hilary Mantell and Philippa Gregory, this felt like the work of an amateur. I liked the premise of Anne writing her own story to her daughter but that is as far as the positives go.
I stopped being able to engage with the story when Anne Boleyn referred to her parents and Mum and Dad. A quick google search would have revealed to the author that the term Mum wasn't used until five hundred years after the Tudors and Dad was just starting to be used in the sixteenth century. It is unlikely that it would have been used in the royal courts.
My other bugbear was the author's use of diminutives of names. Calling Thomas Cromwell, Tom just because their were so many Thomases (the author's explanation) was just lazy. This problem could have been solved by the use of surnames.
I guess the popularity of novels about the Tudors helped to get this book published but I won't be reading anything else by this author whenever the story is set.