I enjoyed her book on Anne Boleyn because it offered a different view point. My only problem with the book was that there were some things that she implied were facts when they are still up for debate. For example, she wrote that Francis I died of Syphilis, but this can not be proven. (Leonie Frieda puts up a pretty good argument for him dieing of gonorrhoea which caused a urinary tract infection.)
I have not read her book on Katherine Howard but I don't know how you do a whole book on her when there is such little information. It must be a tiny tiny book.
Ms Denny's work on Anne Boleyn never made it out of the City of London where it was purchased. Thankfully, it was found on a bookstore bargain shelf. Originally it was wanted to accompany me on a trip around the country...it got left in a hotel room, with almost 3/4 of it unread.
I think that all you really need to do is look at Amazon.com for the reviews of her books. I usually tend to go with what 'regular people' have to say about historial books. For both Ms Denny's Anne and Catherine Howard, only 2 1/2 stars were awarded. That's low.
I have both of Joanna denny's books on Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard it gives a different look at the two women's lives.I found the books interesting. Not only that Joanna Denny is related to a man who served as a courtier at king Henry's court his name was Anthony Denny.something new.
Personally, I loved her books. I found them both interesting and historically correct. The Katherine Howard both isn't small it's the same as Anne Boleyn, it's not completely just about her,there's a lot about the Howard family. Also other things about Tudor History.
I have read her work on Katherine Howard, because I plan at some point to write a biography on Queen Katherine, when I am older and have accessed more sources. It was a good book to read, she went into quite a lot of depth, and while I agreed with several theories she put forward - such as the date of birth - I disagreed with others, such as her irrepressible belief that Henry VIII was the father of Mary Boleyn's children when there is no evidence for it. As many people know she is quite hostile to Catholic people such as Katherine of Aragon, Mary Tudor etc, and very pro-Anne Boleyn.
I found Joanna Denny's book horribly biased. It is one thing for a 'biographer' to treat her subject sympathetically, but not to the extent that she has to defame all others who were contrary to Anne. That is appalling scholarship. It seems to mean nothing to Ms Denny that Katherine had been Henry's queen for over twenty years and it was Anne who was the interloper. Also, she has no sympathy for Mary and the ill-treatment she suffered at the hands of Henry. She seems to think that Mary should not have stood up for her rights, but admitted her illegitimacy and left the field clear for Anne, Henry and their offspring. Did it ever occur to Ms Denny that the reason that Anne was so reviled by the ordinary people in her life-time was because she had usurped the place of their beloved queen? The English people - notoriously insular when it comes to foreigners - took Katherine to their hearts from the start. If she was as unpleasant as Denny paints her the people would never have loved her to the extent that they did, a fact which is clear by their extreme hostile reaction toward Anne. Also, Denny is a descendant of Sir Anthony Denny, a crony of Henry's, whose family probably benefited from Henry's looting of the monasteries. she can hardly be accepted as an unbiased source and her claims should taken with more than a little caution.
7 comments:
I enjoyed her book on Anne Boleyn because it offered a different view point. My only problem with the book was that there were some things that she implied were facts when they are still up for debate. For example, she wrote that Francis I died of Syphilis, but this can not be proven. (Leonie Frieda puts up a pretty good argument for him dieing of gonorrhoea which caused a urinary tract infection.)
I have not read her book on Katherine Howard but I don't know how you do a whole book on her when there is such little information. It must be a tiny tiny book.
Ms Denny's work on Anne Boleyn never made it out of the City of London where it was purchased. Thankfully, it was found on a bookstore bargain shelf. Originally it was wanted to accompany me on a trip around the country...it got left in a hotel room, with almost 3/4 of it unread.
I think that all you really need to do is look at Amazon.com for the reviews of her books. I usually tend to go with what 'regular people' have to say about historial books. For both Ms Denny's Anne and Catherine Howard, only 2 1/2 stars were awarded. That's low.
I have both of Joanna denny's books on Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard it gives a different look at the two women's lives.I found the books interesting.
Not only that Joanna Denny is related to a man who served as a courtier at king Henry's court his name was Anthony Denny.something new.
Hey this is Sarah
Personally, I loved her books. I found them both interesting and historically correct. The Katherine Howard both isn't small it's the same as Anne Boleyn, it's not completely just about her,there's a lot about the Howard family. Also other things about Tudor History.
I have read her work on Katherine Howard, because I plan at some point to write a biography on Queen Katherine, when I am older and have accessed more sources. It was a good book to read, she went into quite a lot of depth, and while I agreed with several theories she put forward - such as the date of birth - I disagreed with others, such as her irrepressible belief that Henry VIII was the father of Mary Boleyn's children when there is no evidence for it. As many people know she is quite hostile to Catholic people such as Katherine of Aragon, Mary Tudor etc, and very pro-Anne Boleyn.
But it was enjoyable..
the book on Catherine Howard seems full of faults
I found Joanna Denny's book horribly biased. It is one thing for a 'biographer' to treat her subject sympathetically, but not to the extent that she has to defame all others who were contrary to Anne. That is appalling scholarship.
It seems to mean nothing to Ms Denny that Katherine had been Henry's queen for over twenty years and it was Anne who was the interloper. Also, she has no sympathy for Mary and the ill-treatment she suffered at the hands of Henry. She seems to think that Mary should not have stood up for her rights, but admitted her illegitimacy and left the field clear for Anne, Henry and their offspring.
Did it ever occur to Ms Denny that the reason that Anne was so reviled by the ordinary people in her life-time was because she had usurped the place of their beloved queen? The English people - notoriously insular when it comes to foreigners - took Katherine to their hearts from the start. If she was as unpleasant as Denny paints her the people would never have loved her to the extent that they did, a fact which is clear by their extreme hostile reaction toward Anne.
Also, Denny is a descendant of Sir Anthony Denny, a crony of Henry's, whose family probably benefited from Henry's looting of the monasteries. she can hardly be accepted as an unbiased source and her claims should taken with more than a little caution.
Post a Comment