Thank you to GenZ Publishing for a chance to read and review this book.
I’m not sure what I expected from this book. From the title I think I was expecting an exploration of Edward VI’s reign, but what it actually explores is the supposed grudge of Mary I, daughter of Henry VIII and Katherine of Aragon, and how she murdered her half-brother, Edward VI to take the throne. There were some rumours of this at the time, especially from Protestant commentators, who resented Mary I returning England to the Roman Catholic Church.
The way that the story was written was quite engaging in places, and I did enjoy Richard Barton’s sojourn in Italy at the beginning of the book. However, there were several grammatical and spelling errors scattered throughout, which slightly ruined my enjoyment of it. Jumping backwards and forwards in memories was quite well-handled, and it was clear which sections were past and present. This isn’t always handled well in novels in my experience, so I was pleased that it was in this instance.
There were a couple of major fact issues I had with the novel. The main one is that Thomas Cranmer was Archbishop of Canterbury in 1527, but he didn’t become Archbishop until 1532. The timeline is a bit messed up, frankly, and I think this ruined my overall enjoyment of the novel. Perhaps these historic fact issues were such a big deal for me because, in the Preface, the author says that positions taken, religious orientation and ideas expressed are accurate as per the historical record, but from my research this isn’t necessarily true. There were also a couple of factual errors when Snow outlined the history in the Preface (see the list, if interested, at the bottom of this review).
I don’t expect historical fiction to be entirely historically accurate. I really enjoy reading Philippa Gregory’s ‘The Other Boleyn Girl’, and no one accepts that novel is historically accurate. I think what annoyed me particularly about this novel is that the author had written in the Preface that he had based it on the historical sources, but there are several glaring factual errors.
Perhaps because of my background I can’t see past the historical inaccuracies. Someone with less knowledge might find the book more engaging and readable than I did for this reason.
I know not everyone will be interested, but for those who are, here are some of the issues I had with the historical record in this novel:
- The main issue I had is that, in the novel, Thomas Cranmer was Archbishop of Canterbury in 1527, but in reality he didn’t become Archbishop until 1532. This is a really key issue as 1527 marks really the beginning of the Reformation ideas in England, while 1532 is where England breaks with Rome. This means that Cranmer is working with Thomas Wolsey, which never happened; I’m not aware that the two ever met.
- The idea of a church without a Pope also seems to have come from Wolsey in this novel, but he was a staunch Roman Catholic, and I can’t imagine he would ever have suggested this.
- Snow also has the Sack of Rome two years before, which would put it in 1525, but this actually happened in 1527. The Battle of Pavia where Charles V captured the French king was in 1525 but the Imperial Sack of Rome was in 1527 when the divorce was just being put into action.
- The main issue in the Preface was that Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, was regent to Edward VI. This latter is completely untrue – Edward VI only had two regents and they were Edward Seymour, Duke of Somerset, and John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland. Northumberland was formerly Earl of Warwick so possibly this is where the confusion comes from.
- Snow also writes that Edward VI was born in 1538, when he was actually born a year earlier, in 1537.
- In the Preface, Snow says that Anne Boleyn was accused of witchcraft. This is a common misconception, but she was never actually indicted for witchcraft. This stems from a comment by Henry VIII, reported by Chapuys, that he had been “bewitched”.