What do you think?
Rate this book
The Tudor Queens of England
In this book you will learn all the little details that other books havent covered.
264 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2009
16 people are currently reading
1823 people want to read
About the author
David Loades
90 books42 followersDavid Michael Loades was a British historian who specialised in the Tudor era. After military service in the Royal Air Force from 1953 until 1955, Loades studied at the University of Cambridge. In the 1960s and 1970s he taught at the universities of St. Andrews and Durham. From 1980 until 1996 Loades was Professor of History at the University of Wales; after taking emeritus status, Loades served as Honorary Research Professor at the University of Sheffield from 1996 until 2008.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews
September 14, 2013
This was just a let down from beginning to end. First thing that bothered me was the title that didn't really fit in with the content. Tudor queens, yet he starts with the Lancaster queen Catherine of Valois? Sure, she gave birth to the tudors, but still. When you say Tudor queens I think of Elizabeth of York till Queen Elizabeth I. And if you're going to start with Catherine of Valois and go all the way through, why skip Anne Neville? Sure, she was largely an unknown and forgotten queen, but to only mention her once or twice? Not cool. Poor Anne. Another thing that was really annoying was the groupings of women together in chapters with no thought of chronology at all. I mean, grouping Catherine of Aragon and Anne of Cleves might show that they fulfilled the same roles in their marriages, but they are far apart in time, and the jump between them still has to be described to go from one to the other. And then after that you can read the same thing over again inthe next chapter about Anne Boleyn, Jane Seymour and Catherine Parr. The language was the last thing that really bothered me, since it seems that Loades is a bit anti-female in some of his judgings. He calls Catherine Howard both a slut and a whore. While she might be a sexed young girl, does that really make her a slut? And is it even okay to call anyone that in a serious work of non-fiction? Several of the queens he also attributes with an overly stimulated sexdrive and a frustration from not having this drive satisfied. I would sure like proof of this, because even though Catherine of Valois married Owen Tudor, does that really make a glutton for sex? Couldn't it simply be love?
March 24, 2016
Very disappointing. This just doesn't work at all. The choice of queens is strange, gusting bizarre. Catharine de Valois; OK maybe, at a pinch. Margaret of Anjou and Elizabeth Woodville? Why? How do they fit by any stretch of the imagination into a treatise on Tudor queens? If Loades is going to cover them, then where is Anne Neville? I do not understand.
The headings don't seem to work either. If Anne Boleyn, Jane Seymour and Catherine Parr are to be under the umbrella of domestic queens, then so should Catherine Howard be. The queens who never were surely only really works for Jane Grey, not for Mary Stuart? If this is 'women who weren't queen of England' then many others came close. This seems illogical.
The language Loades uses to describe some of the queens is disrespectful and loaded. Dominatrix, slut, whore, pudding? Really? Less pejorative terms are far more appropriate, especially for a scholarly work.
The editing is patchy, the grammar is occasionally suspect, there are no definitions for archaic words such as manred, some of the dates are incorrect, there are no family trees and what is with all the exclamation marks?!!!!!!!! Annoying.
I cannot recommend this.
The headings don't seem to work either. If Anne Boleyn, Jane Seymour and Catherine Parr are to be under the umbrella of domestic queens, then so should Catherine Howard be. The queens who never were surely only really works for Jane Grey, not for Mary Stuart? If this is 'women who weren't queen of England' then many others came close. This seems illogical.
The language Loades uses to describe some of the queens is disrespectful and loaded. Dominatrix, slut, whore, pudding? Really? Less pejorative terms are far more appropriate, especially for a scholarly work.
The editing is patchy, the grammar is occasionally suspect, there are no definitions for archaic words such as manred, some of the dates are incorrect, there are no family trees and what is with all the exclamation marks?!!!!!!!! Annoying.
I cannot recommend this.
March 31, 2017
The premise of this book interested me, the actual execution was poor. The main issues I found were that firstly that there were several historical inaccuracies, such as incorrectly citing Darnley's mother as Eleanor Brandon, it was actually Margaret Douglas, something that really should have been checked. The second issue was the bizarre grouping of queens, for instance the domestic queens section which resulted in jumping back and forth in history, making it hard to keep track of what is going on. My final issue is Loades' treatment of Katherine Howard as a whore, I agree with Lucy Worsley that we should see her as an abused girl who was taken advantage of by powerful and older men and not a whore.
August 19, 2014
From what I see, the book is targeted at people with a beginner-to-intermediate level of history. From time to time it skips over important events that didn't directly involve the book's characters (if I can call them such) but influenced their lives one way or the other by saying "it's well known how [a particular event] played out"...
That's all good and well but then the author does some errors that jump out of the page in a book that should require at least minimal knowledge to read. Example number one appears in Elizabeth Woodville's chapter. The John Woodville that was executed by the Earl of Warwick was Elizabeth's brother, not her uncle (as the author calls him not once, but twice), the same brother that had married, in his 20s, a 65 year-old widow - fact that had actually been mentioned a few pages before that. It is relevant that it was that particular brother that was killed, as the author himself mentions how the 65 year-old widow was a Neville - a relation of the Earl of Warwick.
Example number 2 appears in the Elizabeth of York chapter. The Viscount Welles is mentioned as uncle of king Henry VII (correct), because he is half-brother of Jasper Tudor...! (incorrect). Viscount Welles was a half-brother of Margaret Beaufort - also relevant, because it shows Margaret's influence with Henry. Cecily, the sister of Elizabeth of York, was the daughter of a king and she married Viscount Welles, who was a virtual nobody (albeit with noble blood) who was lucky enough to share a mother with Margaret Beaufort.
The third one I noticed was the worst of all. In the Mary Queen of Scots chapter, the mother of Henry Darnley was described as the daughter of Eleanor Brandon (herself a daughter of Mary Tudor). The fact that Eleanor Brandon was born 1519 and Lord Darnley was born 1545 should have already rung some bells. Lord Darnley's claim to the English throne did not come via Mary Tudor, but via her elder sister Margaret, who, through her second marriage to Archibald Douglas, was the mother of Lord Darnley's mother, Margaret Douglas, who had married the Earl of Lennox. That is VERY relevant because his claim was in no way "distant", as the author claims. Margaret, not Mary, was the older sister, and when Mary Stuart, her granddaughter via her first marriage married Henry Darnley, grandson via her second, she basically united the two top legitimate claims to the English throne (considering that Elizabeth, queen at the time, had a claim that was tainted by illegitimacy and had no children and no other children of Henry VIII survived after her, since Margaret was the older sister of Henry VIII, her main heir was Mary followed by Henry Darnley). Therefore, the child born of this union had a double claim and quite unlikely to have a rival.
In the final chapter (queens after 1603), there's a river of mistakes. For an author that keeps insisting of mentioning the number of children each queen produces, he gets them wrong in an astonishing manner. Queen Anne did not have 18 pregnancies, but 17. Queen Victoria did not have 10 children, she had 9 and not "most of them" got married, all of them got married - just that not all of them produced children and not all of them have descendants alive today(which is a completely different matter). I will give him the benefit of a doubt and say that maybe he meant that "most of them" married into other royal families, spreading Victoria's bloodline pretty much in every European country.
You may think I am a bit obsessive compulsive with these things, but I fail to see how a book that obviously expects is readers to at least know the basic events of the days can end up making mistakes that can be corrected by Wikipedia and are known even by people that do not have advanced historical knowledge. I think that a person that reads actual history and not historical fiction, will expect at least the Wikipedia facts named right (and none of the mistakes above is really that hard to spot). These things make you wonder if the author did any research at all.
That's all good and well but then the author does some errors that jump out of the page in a book that should require at least minimal knowledge to read. Example number one appears in Elizabeth Woodville's chapter. The John Woodville that was executed by the Earl of Warwick was Elizabeth's brother, not her uncle (as the author calls him not once, but twice), the same brother that had married, in his 20s, a 65 year-old widow - fact that had actually been mentioned a few pages before that. It is relevant that it was that particular brother that was killed, as the author himself mentions how the 65 year-old widow was a Neville - a relation of the Earl of Warwick.
Example number 2 appears in the Elizabeth of York chapter. The Viscount Welles is mentioned as uncle of king Henry VII (correct), because he is half-brother of Jasper Tudor...! (incorrect). Viscount Welles was a half-brother of Margaret Beaufort - also relevant, because it shows Margaret's influence with Henry. Cecily, the sister of Elizabeth of York, was the daughter of a king and she married Viscount Welles, who was a virtual nobody (albeit with noble blood) who was lucky enough to share a mother with Margaret Beaufort.
The third one I noticed was the worst of all. In the Mary Queen of Scots chapter, the mother of Henry Darnley was described as the daughter of Eleanor Brandon (herself a daughter of Mary Tudor). The fact that Eleanor Brandon was born 1519 and Lord Darnley was born 1545 should have already rung some bells. Lord Darnley's claim to the English throne did not come via Mary Tudor, but via her elder sister Margaret, who, through her second marriage to Archibald Douglas, was the mother of Lord Darnley's mother, Margaret Douglas, who had married the Earl of Lennox. That is VERY relevant because his claim was in no way "distant", as the author claims. Margaret, not Mary, was the older sister, and when Mary Stuart, her granddaughter via her first marriage married Henry Darnley, grandson via her second, she basically united the two top legitimate claims to the English throne (considering that Elizabeth, queen at the time, had a claim that was tainted by illegitimacy and had no children and no other children of Henry VIII survived after her, since Margaret was the older sister of Henry VIII, her main heir was Mary followed by Henry Darnley). Therefore, the child born of this union had a double claim and quite unlikely to have a rival.
In the final chapter (queens after 1603), there's a river of mistakes. For an author that keeps insisting of mentioning the number of children each queen produces, he gets them wrong in an astonishing manner. Queen Anne did not have 18 pregnancies, but 17. Queen Victoria did not have 10 children, she had 9 and not "most of them" got married, all of them got married - just that not all of them produced children and not all of them have descendants alive today(which is a completely different matter). I will give him the benefit of a doubt and say that maybe he meant that "most of them" married into other royal families, spreading Victoria's bloodline pretty much in every European country.
You may think I am a bit obsessive compulsive with these things, but I fail to see how a book that obviously expects is readers to at least know the basic events of the days can end up making mistakes that can be corrected by Wikipedia and are known even by people that do not have advanced historical knowledge. I think that a person that reads actual history and not historical fiction, will expect at least the Wikipedia facts named right (and none of the mistakes above is really that hard to spot). These things make you wonder if the author did any research at all.
August 3, 2016
ISBN? - 9780826434388
General Subject/s? - History / Women / Tudors / Wars of the Roses
Title? - Not just Tudor Queens, goes back as far as Katherine of Valois, Margaret of Anjou and Elizabeth Woodville, so Wars of the Roses, really.
General Analysis? - This book is a very quick read, and not very detailed. It's good for a starter who doesn't know much about the period, but not much use for those who are looking for something more detailed. He condenses three of Henry VIII's wives (Anne Boleyn, Jane Seymour and Catherine Parr) into one short chapter, yet he writes a whole chapter on Catherine Howard. There is also only one short chapter on Elizabeth I, when her reign was one of the most influential ever. I don't think he is very thorough, and this is also evident in Loades' other book The Six Wives of Henry VIII where there is barely any information given, and lots is left out. He manages to squeeze quite a lot into what he writes, but it could do with more detail.
Recommend? – As a starter, yes. For more detailed information, no.
General Subject/s? - History / Women / Tudors / Wars of the Roses
Title? - Not just Tudor Queens, goes back as far as Katherine of Valois, Margaret of Anjou and Elizabeth Woodville, so Wars of the Roses, really.
General Analysis? - This book is a very quick read, and not very detailed. It's good for a starter who doesn't know much about the period, but not much use for those who are looking for something more detailed. He condenses three of Henry VIII's wives (Anne Boleyn, Jane Seymour and Catherine Parr) into one short chapter, yet he writes a whole chapter on Catherine Howard. There is also only one short chapter on Elizabeth I, when her reign was one of the most influential ever. I don't think he is very thorough, and this is also evident in Loades' other book The Six Wives of Henry VIII where there is barely any information given, and lots is left out. He manages to squeeze quite a lot into what he writes, but it could do with more detail.
Recommend? – As a starter, yes. For more detailed information, no.
February 26, 2014
Let me copy the email I sent to the professor who assigned this text:
"This book by Loades keeps getting worse and worse. On page 168, he says that Henry Darnley's mother, Margaret Douglas, was "the daughter of Eleanor, the younger sister of Frances Brandon, Duchess of Suffolk." <---- WHAT? How the (redacted) does a mistake that massive get into print? How does someone writing a book about "Tudor Queens" (and as you said, stretching that to the frozen limit to start with) NOT know that Margaret Douglas is descended from MARGARET Tudor, not Mary?!?
This seems irresponsible and sloppy - all the typos I've found were one thing, but this? WOW.
Seriously, tell me, how does this happen?"
Look, it sounds pedantic, but it's a huge mistake. Even typing it, let alone proofing and copy-editing so poorly that it makes it into the final text, seriously undermines the value of the book, showing as it does a fundamental unfamiliarity with the subject.
It's a huge tip-off that Loades does not know the subject and his book ought to be treated as a less-than-informed take on the matter.
"This book by Loades keeps getting worse and worse. On page 168, he says that Henry Darnley's mother, Margaret Douglas, was "the daughter of Eleanor, the younger sister of Frances Brandon, Duchess of Suffolk." <---- WHAT? How the (redacted) does a mistake that massive get into print? How does someone writing a book about "Tudor Queens" (and as you said, stretching that to the frozen limit to start with) NOT know that Margaret Douglas is descended from MARGARET Tudor, not Mary?!?
This seems irresponsible and sloppy - all the typos I've found were one thing, but this? WOW.
Seriously, tell me, how does this happen?"
Look, it sounds pedantic, but it's a huge mistake. Even typing it, let alone proofing and copy-editing so poorly that it makes it into the final text, seriously undermines the value of the book, showing as it does a fundamental unfamiliarity with the subject.
It's a huge tip-off that Loades does not know the subject and his book ought to be treated as a less-than-informed take on the matter.
July 5, 2011
Oh, David Loades. Sadly, you did not impress me with this piece of work.
The concept of the Tudor Queens of England grabbed my attention instantly and I proceeded to prder the book from another library branch. I have read tons of history books on female members of the royalty, mistresses, wives, etc. Thus, even though I know most of the information, this book seemed perfect for me!
Wrong! I found Tudor Queens of England to be far too dry, basic, and just plainly, uninteresting. None of the facts were unheard, it was just an overview; and the passages moved far too slowly. If you are a history buff just joing the Tudor World, then this book is for you. If you consider yourself an expert, you can skip this slow book and you won't lose out because we already know all of the contents.
Don't misunderstand, Loades is a well-known author in the drama but this book is a bit of a slip.
The concept of the Tudor Queens of England grabbed my attention instantly and I proceeded to prder the book from another library branch. I have read tons of history books on female members of the royalty, mistresses, wives, etc. Thus, even though I know most of the information, this book seemed perfect for me!
Wrong! I found Tudor Queens of England to be far too dry, basic, and just plainly, uninteresting. None of the facts were unheard, it was just an overview; and the passages moved far too slowly. If you are a history buff just joing the Tudor World, then this book is for you. If you consider yourself an expert, you can skip this slow book and you won't lose out because we already know all of the contents.
Don't misunderstand, Loades is a well-known author in the drama but this book is a bit of a slip.
August 25, 2020
A few issues with this book:
It didn't do what it said on the tin. Supposedly Tudor queens, and yet included Catherine of Valois (tenuous) and Margaret of Anjou and Elizabeth Widville - not Tudor queens by any stretch of the imagination!
Errors. Anne Boleyn was executed on the 19th May, not the 18th. That's a fairly well known fact, so why has Loades got it wrong? Also has a mix-up over the family tree of the Lennox family. There was descended from Margaret Tudor's second marriage, not from the daughter of Mary Tudor. Elementary mistakes and makes you wonder what else is wrong! He also seems very certain of years of birth for Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard, which many a better historian is tentative regarding.
Nothing new. These was just a (sometimes rushed) regurgitation of a rather traditionalist history. I don't believe it told us anything knew and I can't see what was really gained by looking at all of these women in one volume. It could have worked really well, but Loades isn't undertaking a feminist reappraisal and is happy to condone the misogynist narrative, condemning Catherine Howard as a whore and a slut instead of a badly abused child.
It didn't do what it said on the tin. Supposedly Tudor queens, and yet included Catherine of Valois (tenuous) and Margaret of Anjou and Elizabeth Widville - not Tudor queens by any stretch of the imagination!
Errors. Anne Boleyn was executed on the 19th May, not the 18th. That's a fairly well known fact, so why has Loades got it wrong? Also has a mix-up over the family tree of the Lennox family. There was descended from Margaret Tudor's second marriage, not from the daughter of Mary Tudor. Elementary mistakes and makes you wonder what else is wrong! He also seems very certain of years of birth for Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard, which many a better historian is tentative regarding.
Nothing new. These was just a (sometimes rushed) regurgitation of a rather traditionalist history. I don't believe it told us anything knew and I can't see what was really gained by looking at all of these women in one volume. It could have worked really well, but Loades isn't undertaking a feminist reappraisal and is happy to condone the misogynist narrative, condemning Catherine Howard as a whore and a slut instead of a badly abused child.
May 8, 2020
Fascinating information on the various queens of England during the Tudor, from the mother and on. Worth the read even if it's for those who don't have much. There are some errors and missing queens that seemed to not make the cut.
August 30, 2020
Nothing I haven't read before about these Queens but for someone new to the life and times of the English throne they may find it quite interesting. Still an interesting enough read for me since I am so totally fascinated with the British monarchy. I gave this book 3.5 out of 5 stars!
May 5, 2018
Chalk full of information. Lots of dates. Very smooth but pretty dry. Also, it’s not a book to pick up if you know little to nothing about this era or this family’s legacy. I liked it.
July 13, 2019
Good text book. Made some interesting points.
June 14, 2024
A well written and highly informative book about powerful Queens and their places in history. I really enjoyed reading about each and every one.
August 22, 2024
Generally I enjoy historical books, but this 9ne just wasn’t for me. Maybe I’ve already read too much about the Tudors and ir would have been better suited to someone with different interests.
July 22, 2015
This slim volume is not not quite what it proclaims to be. Much of the book, especially the beginning, devotes text to the men in the lives of the queens being profiled. Too much of the argument is sexist, good grief. While Henry VIII's dynastic needs are discussed respectfully, Catherine Howard is called a slut and Mary Queen of Scots is described as frustrated by a woman's weakness. This kind of inequitable handling of presumed sexual matters is biased, absurd, and deplorably inappropriate and is frankly surprising in a book published in 2009. The author presumes to speculate on domestic matters so much that he wears out even the most amenable forbearance. I was asking of the text, "Oh Yeah, how the hell do you know?" Some reference material would been appropriate. Also there are some wild factual mistakes. He claims that Henry Darnley is the grandchild of Eleanor Brandon. He was not. Eleanor Brandon had a daughter named Margaret, who married Henry Stanley;that Margaret is not Henry Darnley's mother. Henry Darnley's mother was Margaret Douglas, Countess of Lennox, who was Margaret Tudor's daughter. Margaret Tudor was Henry VIII's older sister. It get confusing, sure, but you can't play amateur hour and be a famous Tudor scholar. Also, what were the editors doing, playing solitaire on their computers? And later the author mentions that Queen Victoria had 10 children. This one is easy to spot, she had nine and no known miscarriages. Whoops!
That being said this book has some refreshingly lucid and informative prose and is a fine, gossipy, review of; or tantalizing introduction to- the several hundred years of material. A good scholar will hunt and peck for the mistakes, which might be a worthy learning challenge. I think this is an instance where an aging and perhaps forgetful dinosaur scholar of a passing generation has repackaged his learning to catch a ride on the popularity of all things Tudor and especially Tudor women to publish a book. Just my theory. It was a fun read, as readable as a novel. Just be cautioned, there is some irresponsible lack of fact-checking, Yikes!
That being said this book has some refreshingly lucid and informative prose and is a fine, gossipy, review of; or tantalizing introduction to- the several hundred years of material. A good scholar will hunt and peck for the mistakes, which might be a worthy learning challenge. I think this is an instance where an aging and perhaps forgetful dinosaur scholar of a passing generation has repackaged his learning to catch a ride on the popularity of all things Tudor and especially Tudor women to publish a book. Just my theory. It was a fun read, as readable as a novel. Just be cautioned, there is some irresponsible lack of fact-checking, Yikes!
May 17, 2011
I would like to give this one 3.5 stars.
I just finished this book, which is a quick but I would not say easy read. It reads much like a text book and the print is teeny tiny! The layout of the information is nice in that each chapter focuses on a Queen or two for a more clear understanding of their roles and reputations. This book offers a nice way to get a fairly good grasp of a large chunk of British Royal history in less than 250 pages, which is impressive in my mind. But if someone is looking for something in the ilk of The Other Boleyn Girl this is most certainly not it.
All-in-all I enjoyed it but it takes some determination to keep everyone properly sorted as to their relationships and place in chronological history because there is no family tree or time-line included.
I just finished this book, which is a quick but I would not say easy read. It reads much like a text book and the print is teeny tiny! The layout of the information is nice in that each chapter focuses on a Queen or two for a more clear understanding of their roles and reputations. This book offers a nice way to get a fairly good grasp of a large chunk of British Royal history in less than 250 pages, which is impressive in my mind. But if someone is looking for something in the ilk of The Other Boleyn Girl this is most certainly not it.
All-in-all I enjoyed it but it takes some determination to keep everyone properly sorted as to their relationships and place in chronological history because there is no family tree or time-line included.
June 26, 2017
This is a short, quick book of essentially summaries of, well the queens of Enlgand from the Tudor Dynasty. This is a really good, easy to read book though it's definitely much more of one for those who haven't studied these women or this time period as much as I have. And while I'm not well versed in all the women in this book, I am in the majority so for me it was just rehash of what I already know. But I would definitely recommend it to someone who wants to test the water of the women of this dynasty.
Read
July 22, 2011One of my favorite subjects and overall very informative. My only complaint is that the book doesn't include a geneaological chart, which is desperately needed to keep track of all the people involved and how they relate to one another. It might be a bit overwhelming for those not already familiar with the Tudor period, but otherwise quite good.
May 12, 2015
This was an excellent book. It offered a dispassionate studied narrative of the lives of fascinating women as well as a clear look at the conventions of the day and the varying roles a queen would have filled. There is a brief epilogue discussing queens of England right up to the present day which was interesting and enjoyable as well.
October 28, 2009
There aren't any groundbreaking revelations about any of the Tudor queens but this book is a decent overview of each queen and her role as either consort or, in the case of Mary and Elizabeth, sovereign.
February 20, 2013
Interesting book about a very fascinating time in English history. I would have prefered to read about the events and people in chronological order, and sometimes I would have appreciated a few explanations about important persons (so many names!) but overall this was a good read.
February 19, 2011
Too much like a textbook. I did not finish.
July 13, 2010
Great overview of the queens and queen consorts of England, contrasting how each woman made their own mark on the country. Actually learned some facts I had not heard before. Fast read.
December 19, 2010
This is NOT a narrative and reads more like a history book, so it is quite a "dry" read; however, it was informitive. It makes for a good reference source in a book collection.
Currently reading
June 2, 2011Fantastic and fascinating
March 31, 2020
Great easy short synopsis of the importance of these queens.
Read
October 10, 2012great book finished it last week,
January 21, 2013
Ok book nothing special.
March 31, 2013
Amazing book!
November 1, 2013
I was disappointed over the typos I discovered, plus a few factual errors, and no new information. In the end, not really sure why this book was even necessary.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews