Book Review: Thorns, Lust and Glory by Estelle Paranque

 

[I received a review copy of this book from the publisher via Netgalley in exchange for an honest review.]
 

Thorns, Lust and Glory: The Betrayal of Anne Boleyn by Estelle Paranque is a highly engaging book that doesn’t quite live up to the presumption of “betrayal” made in the title.

The premise set up in the early pages of Thorns, Lust and Glory: The Betrayal of Anne Boleyn and explored throughout the book is admittedly somewhat blurry: the general idea is that Anne was "betrayed" by the French who refused to take a stand against Rome in favor of supporting England, Henry VIII and her marriage.

The book later fleshes out this idea, positing that this was a “betrayal” because Anne was essentially a "French princess," that she had been acting in French interests after her rise in England, and thus the refusal of the French king and court to support England over Rome and step in when Anne herself was arrested was specifically a betrayal against Anne Boleyn herself.

While Paranque explores what we do know of Anne's connections to France (which continued after she left England, to at last some degree) and discusses at length the political and diplomatic schemes, plots and pleadings involved in the various attempts to gain French support for Henry VIII’s annulment and remarriage, I don't feel that the general thesis was actually supported by this presented evidence.

Yes, Anne served in the court of France for some years. Yes, Anne entertained French ambassadors, and went with Henry to France in their bid to get Francis' support for their marriage. Yes, the French sent various diplomats at various times to attempt to drum up support for Henry VIII’s will on the matter of his marriage(s).

But nothing written about in this book supports this idea that Anne was acting in French interests, that she was--as Paranque writes numerous times in the book--essentially a "French princess," nor that the French’s actions could be viewed as as a “betrayal” against Anne Boleyn.

Paranque writes in her introduction that, “Some dialogue has been re-created from primary sources and perhaps I have also allowed myself more speculative claims that again are based on primary evidence, but rely evidently on my own judgment and appreciation of them.”

In regards to the dialogue being primary sources repurposed, it’s not something I like to see done in non-fiction  without the author admitting that they are putting letters into a different context at the moment.

Otherwise, readers are left to wonder: is what I’m reading an accurate representation of this primary source? Was the original primary source a letter, which has been spun into a piece of dialogue? Did the primary source use these exact words? What does recreated mean, here?

While it may make the book more readable, it makes the final understanding of the history fuzzier, and thus not something I want to rely on when learning about Anne Boleyn or these events.

Speculation is inherent when writing about history, especially a figure like Anne Boleyn where there are shockingly few traces of her thoughts and feelings, but the speculation in the book often goes too far.

There is a difference between, for instance, suggesting that a young Anne would have surely been impressed by royal spectacle witnessed as a lady-in-waiting to the French queen and what Paranque does repeatedly throughout this work, which is connect basic events ("Anne witnessed this spectacle while serving in France") and leap to vaster conclusions.

For instance, Paranque writes, after exploring the brief courtship between Henry Percy and Anne Boleyn, that Anne was "buoyed with confidence from her years in France, and what she had learned from the royal women there, she felt ready for whatever might be in store. Secretly, she prayed for glory."

Did she? When? What about Anne's reaction (which is to say--we don't know it!) to the ending of her courtship with Percy, or anything at all from this period, suggests that she was secretly praying for glory? Suggesting that perhaps she admired the powerful women at the French court is one thing, but writing at this stage that she secretly prayed for glory is an entirely different level of speculation.

Although I don’t really agree with the basic premise of the book and I don’t think there was any great revelation made here regarding Anne being “betrayed” by France, I did appreciate some of the smaller details that Paranque was able to uncover regarding Anne’s time in France, along with more detailed information about the movement of diplomats in regards to the “marriage problem” of Henry VIII.

I think that many popular portrayals about the marriage forget just how long it took for decisions to be made, just how many politicians, courtiers and clergymen were tasked with trying to resolve the king’s “question” of his marriage; all these moving parts, at least in regards to France, are covered here in a way that is easy to understand.

Paranque’s writing is very engaging as well, even when the book is covering what might otherwise be a bit of a slog to get through. Sometimes I felt like I was listening to someone speak passionately about a subject they were invested in, which makes for easier reading when it comes to non-fiction. You can tell that Paranque has a strong passion for Anne Boleyn and respect for what she endured in her final days.

Although I don’t think the book lives up to the premise that Anne was “betrayed” by the French, I do think the book is worth a look if you’re interested in more of the behind-the-scenes diplomatic details regarding Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn. The book does contain more actual primary sources (versus speculation about what Anne surely must have felt or done) when it comes to these diplomatic missions, so that is one of the stronger areas of the book.