Favorite "inaccurate" historical fiction book

[Laura]

There are several discussions on various boards about what makes a good historical fiction book. I'm just curious though - what is your favorite book to read that is historically inaccurate? Mine is Desiree. There are so many factual errors but I can't help but like the story and characters. I'll even admit that I like the movie version!

[Tanzanite]

Without a doubt - Katheryn in the Court of Six Queens by Anne Merton Abbey. Some inaccuracies and improbabilities, but great story and sometimes very funny.

[Misfit]

Tanzanite wrote: "Without a doubt - Katheryn in the Court of Six Queens by Anne Merton Abbey. Some inaccuracies and improbabilities, but great story and sometimes very funny."

I second that one. I loved it to bits. Where oh where is a sequel?

[Sara W]

Great idea for a topic! I'll have to think about this one.

[Angie]

I'm always amazed at the books that have Elizabeth and Dudley having a baby. Check out The Queen's Bastard by Robin Maxwell.

[Mandy]

The Other Boleyn Girl!
Absolutely my favorite inaccurate HF.
It's so smutty, so action-packed, so much fun!

[Katri]

Mandy wrote: "The Other Boleyn Girl!
Absolutely my favorite inaccurate HF.
It's so smutty, so action-packed, so much fun!
"

Hehe, I second that! I read the book not knowing much about the real history, and only afterwards I read about how everyone who knows something about the history thinks it's really inaccurate etc. I should read about the actual history to see for myself - but well, that doesn't change the fact that the book was perfect reading when I was lying in bed for days with the flu and high fever, and couldn't do anything but read something which was entertaining and exciting enough to keep my attention but not too difficult for my fever-wracked brain to keep up with. :)

[Danielle]

I agree with The Other Boleyn Girl. I always do research after I read something and discovered that many of the plot points are in great debate among historians and have never been proven. But it was very exciting and very sexy :)

[Susanna - Censored by GoodReads]

I'll bet Other Boleyn Girl would make superb sick-in-bed reading.

Fun read, dreadfully inaccurate!

[Aly]

I would have to say mine is either The Other Boleyn Girl, or The Boleyn Inheritance. They are both pretty inaccurate, yes, but they were well written!!!

[Lindz]

I love PG you just sink in and enjoy the smutty fantasy :). She is my well written trash. My other favourite inaccurate HF would have to be Pillars of the Earth by Ken Follett, all the characters have completely 20th century minds in a 12th century setting, brilliant :)

[Nona]

any of Philippa Gregory would do for me.

[Laura]

Nona wrote: "any of Philippa Gregory would do for me. "

agreed!! I would add Alison Weir also.

[Nona]

Ah, I forgot abot her.

[Aly]

other than Alison Weir playing up a rumor in The Lady Elizabeth (which she comments on), how is she inaccurate???? she's one of the most learned historians on British Royalty and the Tudor period in particular. She didn't want to be inaccurate.

[Sara W]

I have heard that some historians take issue with some of Weir's non-fiction writing (I know there are people here who have read this first hand (on Amazon I think) - I haven't actually read the posts myself). I like Weir for the most part (did not care for the twist in The Lady Elizabeth, but loved The Innocent Traitor and enjoyed her non-fiction that I've read).

[Aly]

Ah I see. Yeah I didn't really like the twist in The Lady Elizabeth myself. Innocent Traitor though was fantastic!! David Starkey and her pretty much have the same things written in both of their various non fiction tomes. I actually hadn't heard that some historians take issue with her, thats a new one for me.

[Lindz]

I think it was with Weir's princes in the tower non fiction. From what I can gather and I may be wrong because I haven't read it, she firmly held that it was Richard III who killed the princes, when most other scholars have been putting the charge to Henry Tudor or Lord Buckingham. From different things I have read on line (which I know isn't exactly reliable) it got slammed by other historians and such like for big holes in the research and theory.

[Paula]

Sara W wrote: "I have heard that some historians take issue with some of Weir's non-fiction writing (I know there are people here who have read this first hand (on Amazon I think) - I haven't actually read the po..."

I take issue with some of Weir's non-fiction, but I'm a little biased. My mentor as an undergrad was completely against what she termed "popular non-fiction" and was very anti-Weir. I'll have to look at my notes for examples. I remember spotting a few errors in her non-fiction book about Elizabeth.

The problem is that Weir's non-fiction is it just so read-able! I thoroughly enjoy her writing, and she doesn't seem to intend to include errors. So often the books that are deemed the best are not written with someone like me as the intended audience. Weir's books encourage people with little to no background to pick them up, to discover this fantastic era, and to search out more information. Perhaps my issue is more that the citations are light, so I have a hard time looking at her source material for confirmation.

I am, however, thoroughly looking forward to reading her fiction books!

[Aly]

She is extremely readable!! I'm honestly a huge Weir fan. But I also don't believe in just reading one person. Like i said, so far in what I've read, everything seems pretty spot on with other historians. But I haven't read the Princes in the Tower.

[Misfit]

I've read comments that Weir is not so highly respected with the historians and that she tends to draw conclusions with what's known to fit her theories.

An interesting book to read on the Princes is Royal Blood Richard III and the Mystery of the Princes. It's written by an attorney (but he does have help with the historical facts) and he takes the mystery from the view point of a lawyer preparing to defend Richard. Interesting stuff and both Weir and Shakespeare get knocked around a bit.

[Aly]

Hmm. like i said that surprises me. It was the 500th anniversary of Henry VIII's coronation this year, they had events going on everywhere that was connected to him, and the two leading historians that got to do a lot of lectures was David Starkey (another one of my favorites) and Alison Weir. So she must not be that unrespected.

[Sara W]

I enjoyed Weir's Princes in the Tower, but she definitely is convinced Richard did it (I'm sure she's hardly the only one however - sorry all you Richardians!). I like Starkey as well (one of my history professors in college loved him, but didn't say anything about Weir). I like Weir regardless, so I'll continue to read her books.

[Sara W]

Misfit wrote: "I've read comments that Weir is not so highly respected with the historians and that she tends to draw conclusions with what's known to fit her theories.

An interesting book to read on the Prin..."

This books sounds really interesting!