****** - Verified Buyer
4.5
I agree with the first two reviewers, this book is very badly researched and sloppily written. I actually found it entertaining for the sheer amusement value at all the historical mistakes and anachronistic style of writing. This Isabelle is a product of Edith Felber's imagination, and only bears the slightest resemblance to the historical figure of The She-Wolf of France (not "She-Wolf of Paris" as Ms. Felber put it). In the book, she speaks neither English or French, she speaks contemporary American English, with an "aye" or "nay" here and there for "local colour". The few words of French used are just as bad.Actually, reading this book made me so mad I had to run and find a history of Isabelle written by a French author (in this case Maurice Druon, of the Académie française) and thoroughly documented, just to take the bad taste out of my mouth, metaphorically speaking.Since a synopsis has already been posted, I'll just comment on a few details.I thoroughly resent the aspersion cast on Edward III's legitimacy. Ms. Felber hints at a Scottish father without naming him. She must have seen "Braveheart" but realized that what Mel Gibson made there was one of the most historically inaccurate movie of all times. About the only thing that's accurate about it is that the man was really named William Wallace. But Isabelle (who never set foot in Scotland anyway) was 3 years old when Edward II defeated Wallace, and Edward III was born seven years after Wallace's death. That doesn't keep Ms. Felber from persisting in her assertion that he's not Edward II's son, she even has Isabelle go so far as telling her husband "He's my son, he has royal blood in him, that's enough" (meaning, he has French royal blood, not English). And then at the end of the book, Ms. Felber is so sloppy she mixes up the generations. She has Isabelle look fondly at her grandson and thinking "how like his father - God rest his soul - he is." She means, he's like not "his father", who's Edward III, and who's still very much alive, but "his grandfather", the un-named Scots with whom Isabelle is supposed to have had an affair (Heaven only knows where and when.)I also resent the fact that Isabelle is made this sweet, lovey-dovey thing who's hurt at being called a "She-Wolf". She was far from sweet, she was made of steel, just like her father, Philippe IV The Fair, who was called "The Iron King". She had to be, just to survive, and to ensure her son would be king of a realm that wouldn't have been totally despoiled by the Despensers. That is what is admirable about her, she was smart, and she was ruthless. And she was a Queen, a real one.The affair she supposedly had with Mortimer at the Tower of London is rather laughable. Can you imagine the Queen of England, especially one as closely watched as Isabelle was, slipping away for a tryst in the prisons of the Tower without the whole Court knowing it? She did have an affair with him, that is true, but according to Druon, that didn't start until they were both safely in France.Ms. Felber prettifies the story too much, makes it 21st century rather than 13th century - a more savage age, when gruesome public executions served as popular entertainment. Gwenith being sick at the younger Hugh Le Despenser's execution (and I admit I myself would be sick, but then I'm a 20th-21st century woman) is not believable. At the time, a Queen's lady-in-waiting would have seen much worse - especially one from Wales, as Gwenith is.And if Ms. Felber had bothered with the merest check on Google, she'd have known that today's historians agree that Edward II wasn't executed with a red hot poker - in fact that he wasn't executed at all. Though both she and Druon tell the same tale about the order from Mortimer and the Queen starting with "Bonum est", which could be interpreted in opposite ways.She also gets it right that Edward III's claim to the French throne was the start of the 100 Years War. Actually, his claim was pretty legitimate, but that's another story.Anyway - from now on Edith Felber is off my list of "historical romance" writers I'll read. I'll go with Sharon Kay Penman, some others whose name escape me at the moment, and yes, even Philippa Gregory.I definitely do not recommend this book, especially not to people who want their historical novels based on factual history. Embroider the facts, invent dialogues, yes. Get names, dates and facts wrong, no.
