She-Wolves

The Women Who Ruled England Before Elizabeth

De: Helen Castor

Narrado por: Esther Wane

In the tradition of Antonia Fraser, David Starkey, and Alison Weir, prize-winning historian Helen Castor delivers a compelling, eye-opening examination of women and power in England, witnessed through the lives of six women who exercised power against all odds - and one who never got the chance.

Exploring the narratives of the Empress Matilda, Eleanor of Aquitaine, Isabella of France, Margaret of Anjou, and other "she-wolves," as well as that of the Nine Days' Queen, Lady Jane Grey, Castor invokes a magisterial discussion of how much - and how little - has changed through the centuries.

©2011 Helen Castor (P)2020 Tantor

informational

loved it. found a few more things that I not known about the history of England.

Solid Information

I liked that it was specific for each woman to have her own segments. I Learned things, which is always my personal preference for a recommendation.

several ladies- from different centuries

I was pretty familiar with most of the women figures wrote about here, so there was some overlap for me. yet all these women are interesting enough, that I didn't mind hearing parts of known figure.but I can say there was something to be said/ heard still about all women laid out here, for ones lesser known and more familiar. I very much enjoyed the info of the few that normally we only hear about in a book about contemporary male figures. so it's totally worth a read, even if it looks like you might sit through some fact you already know.
also a good way to see if you get particularly excited about a certain figure or time on history, so you can have ideas for what you would like to read more on in detail.

Intriguing and educational

The reader was phenomenal. Very well written novels. Didn’t realize history was so real and addictive. The author truly brings to life the lives of those in our past. Thank you!

A great telling of the storie of amazing Queens

I enjoyed this writer's work very much, it kept my attention easily. The narrator was good too.

More than dry facts

I was intrigued by the authors comparison of the strategies, socal/cultural influence and challenges each of these women faced. Deepened my understanding of why each of these queens made the decisions and sacrifices they did. All women ahead of their time but limited by the society they operated in. Elizabeth I played the game the best but at a great personal cost.

Loved to Learn About These Women

This was so great to listen to! So many amazing women in our history even if their impact was hidden by men!.

Ok for a primer

A decent enough primer, though it does not go into very much depth on any of the women. I also found it rather irritating, but it seems that most of the text does not actually talk about them as much as the biographies and actions of the men around them.
For example, the first small section of the book is supposedly about Mary I. However, she gets barely a few lines of text, and the rest of the chapter is about her brother, Edward. We get a complete biography of him. Including how and where he was raised, by whom, choices he made, etc.

I also found it particularly irritating for audio listeners, that the narrator insisted on pronouncing Charles as SHARLS and Henri as ONREE when referring to the kings of France. Like I guess she's trying to pronounce the names with some sort of half ass French accent or whatever… But this is an English book, written in English, by an English native speaker, for English native speakers. Making the names unrecognizable in the audio form just creates confusion.

There are numerous historical errors. For example, it is stated that Matilda "rode like a man, riding astride". That's absolutely not what writing like a man means. It means to ride very very hard, very very fast. Sides settles we weren't even invented for another 200 years. How a PhD scholar can make such a obvious error is confusing to me
She also states that Richard the third murdered his nephew… Of which there's absolutely no evidence.

She also states that Queen Jane stated that she needed another crown for her husband. Which she never did.
Her refusal to want to try on the Crown of England, was misinterpreted by the bishop, who thought she didn't want to try it on because she wanted another crown for her husband. She never actually stated that she WANTED another one. And knowing her lack of enthusiasm for being elevated to queen, as well as for her husband, i'm not really sure how a PhD could make such a mistake.

The author also has an annoying habit of trying to make every woman a heroine, no matter how they acted.
Margaret of Anjou, for example, is clearly written off as being "misunderstood", and only working for the betterment of her husband and son.
However, the shocking actions she takes are completely glossed over – for example, the mayor of London proceeded her entourage with the seal of the city.
Something that is normally kept for the king himself. The way it is presented in the book, you would think that the mayor thought of this idea himself.
But that is not the case. Historically, Margaret absolutely insisted upon him carrying the royal seal before her, in order to make a statement that SHE, not the king, was the ruler of the realm. Or at least trying to be.
I find it very interesting that the author herself seems to be, not reporting history as it happened, as a dispassionate observer and researcher, but instead, solidly finds herself constantly biased.

For example, in the case of Margaret again, the words she uses to describe Margaret and her forces are "aggressively competent" or "loyal and passionate", while the verbiage that she uses for York and his claim (which frankly, WAS legitimate) are words associated with manipulation, conniving, "regime", and "propaganda", which conjures visions of anonymously indistinguishable, uniformed and heartless savages, wresting the reins of power from a legitimate king and his beloved and devoted wife.
It is quite literally through her own actions that she lost the city of London. Refusing to grant amnesty to the London, whose citizens had previously resisted her.
Although, (again historically)-this is something that Kings would do. At least, those kings that were not so full of arrogance and such self importance that they would rather let their army starve to death then grant amnesty to their own citizens...... but that is something Margaret didn't do.
Instead, she sent vague messages that stirred the city into a riot of panic and "pandemonium". It only proved to solidify the commoners belief that she would slaughter all of them, which increased their distrust and hatred of her.
Her skills in diplomacy, discretion, and generalship were not only weak, but inherently flawed.
Yet the author laments for some reason that she didn't have even GREATER influence and oversight to the army, as she was not allowed to be on the field with them.
If she had been, it probably would have been a far quicker fight. Her enough inept rule, refusal to listen to her advisors and arrogance would have gotten her killed years earlier.

STORY TELLING IS ERRATIC

I didn’t like this book at all. The subject matter is very interesting, although done to death in the past. The problem here is that the author jumps from one time period to another and back again, making the book difficult to follow. One minute we are reading about Empress Matilda, then Elizabeth I, then Eleanor of Aquitaine, then back to Mathilda. The author doesn’t go in-depth enough on each ruler or the time period. She spends way too much time telling us about the MALES surrounding the queens. Like the first we hear about then Princess Elizabeth is after a long discourse on her half-brother King Edward VI. Same with Mathilda. While her her cousin and main contender to the throne of England is key to Matilda’s story, Stephen is given way too much “face time” in this book. All of this extra info adds nothing to the story, resulting in a lengthy and confusing 16 hours. I never got to Queen Victoria and glad of it. We all know that Vickies’s entire life revolved around her beloved husband Prince Albert. I wouldn’t be surprised if there is FIVE hours about him while his wife, sovereign and one of England’s longest reigning rulers only getting 2 hours.

After several restarts in an attempt to get some continuity and comprehension, I had to give up after 3 hours. LISTENING to this book is just to “labor-intensive”.