A History of Royals discussion

We have a clear winner for the next Group Read. It is Four Queens: The Provencal Sisters Who Ruled EuropeNancy Goldstone.


Thanks for the nomination and your persistence Alexandria!

I just picked my copy up from the library today, but I automatically renewed it so now I have it until mid-January. YAY!!

I read this, it was pretty good but I felt the title was a little misleading.

Why do you say that Robin?

I don't want to say any spoilers but I felt like "ruled Europe" was a bit of an exaggeration. There's more details if my review, if you're interested: http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...

Thanks!

We are slated to start our read of this book on Wednesday. Is anyone ready?? I have my copy from the library, so I will hopefully start it soon.

Not sure if I'll join this time or not. I'll have to see how my other reads go. I know my library has this book in the even I do decide to join.

I enjoyed it.

Great, I plan to read soon, then we can discuss.

Lyn I just HAD to tell you how much I love your addie!!!!!

I am not very far in the book, lol, but I have been trying to finish Stephen King's The Stand. But I have to say, my first comment is --

Does everyone in Europe have to be named Louis, Henry, or Richard?? Those people did not have any imagination.

On a more serious note, I came up with two questions that I thought might get some discussion going between those of you who have already read the book.

1. One of our members mentioned that they thought the book was incorrectly titled. Do you think the title fits the book. Why or why not. If not, what would your title be?

2. Of the four sisters covered in the book, which one was your favorite, or intrigued you the most and why?

I think if "ruled Europe" was removed and it was just "Four Queens: The Provencal Sisters OF Europe" or something like that, it would have been fine.

Marguerite was my favorite because she seemed to have accomplished the most and was the strongest and most capable.

I think the title was slightly misleading.

I liked Marguerite the best as well. Simply because she was the oldest.

I have to agree that the book was incorrectly titled. It seems only that Marguerite and Eleanor contributed the most to the events described in the book. I think both were interesting, but I tend to gravitate towards Eleanor.

Overall I thought the book was very readable and at times the wording was a bit whimsical. Since the author used chronicles heavily in her research this could have stemmed from that. However, some statements were a bit grandiose and purely speculative. For example, I believe there was a paragraph where Simon Montfort asks for one of the duchies in France back from one of the lords already ruling it. There was some sort of statement about how the lord was in awe of Simon Montfort and so gave him the duchy without argument (I could be wrong, it could have been a statement about the Richard, Henry III's brother).

I still really enjoyed the book.

I just finished the book and I have to agree with what others have said about the title. It is definitely an exaggeration to say all four of the women ruled Europe. It's very much a technicality in the cases of the younger two sisters. However, I did like how the author presented the relationships between marriage, family and politics in the thirteenth century especially as seen through the female perspective.

As for a favorite sister, none of them really appealed to me to be honest.

what did everyone think of her writing style?

I laughed at a few sentences. She definitely was trying to cater to a general audience. However, I don't think authors should get away from the facts too much and give into conjecture. I think she did this a few times.

I personally don't mind some conjecture in a nonfiction as long as the author can back up his/her claims with evidence from the primary sources. Then I can either agree or disagree with it depending upon my own knowledge of the subject or do some research on my own.

^Same here

sorry, I should have clarified what I meant. Conjecture, when its based on available information, is very good. In fact, I think its what makes a good historian. Conjecture is one thing. Imagination is another. There were a few statements made in this book which were a bit overboard. If I had the book on hand I'd give an example, but I don't have it on me at the moment. I'll post up what I mean when I do.

At points in the book, it did seem that she was using conjecture to make it more interesting, almost like trying to make it a novel. I agree that some statements were a bit overboard but for the most part I found it an informing read with little unsupported conjecture.

I am reading it right now and enjoying it for the most part, I have been learning a lot too which I love.

I agree that the title is a bit exaggerated...they were all Queen Consorts, not rulers themselves. It is pretty amazing that all four sisters of a count became queens, but maybe not so much when you realize that the 2 younger sisters married the brothers of the older sister's husbands. Anyway I found it interesting.

It is a family in history that I am largely unfamiliar with, so I am looking forward to it!

I thought it was very good Scarlett, I ended up learning a lot about that period in European history and it wasn't a dry read either.

I am so far behind everybody but I am LOVING it!

That's fantastic Scarlett!

That's okay, Scarlett, I am only on page 25, but I am going to focus on it!

I'm so far behind that I haven't started it yet... :P
I will though, once I get through some of my reads over the next couple of months

Hey we are both in the same boat. I have it sitting here, but only read the first 25 pages or so. I am soooooo far behind in my reading.

I hear you... the library has this one and I think at one point C said I could borrow hers if I need to so I will definitely get to it but I'm not too worried about it right now :P