My review of She-Wolves: The Women Who Ruled England Before Elizabeth, by Helen Castor

She-Wolves: The Women Who Ruled England Before Elizabeth

by Helen Castor

My rating: 4 out of 5 stars

This quality writing explores a stimulating proposition which, as a seasoned Tudor reader, I had long pondered: why all the fuss over Princess Mary Tudor (later 'Bloody' Queen Mary I) in her youth, being a female heir? Why did her father Henry VIII go to such extremes as discarding his marriage, splitting with the church of Rome etc., in his panic to get a male heir, when women had already long since led the nation?

Similarly, why all the further despair when Elizabeth I succeeded Mary? And why, during Elizabeth's long reign, was there so much angst over her most obvious heir, Mary of Scots, possibly succeeding (the latter's religion and controversies aside)? This chauvinistic, perhaps ill-informed generation of statesmen seemingly underestimated that female leadership was not new ground.

I loved, as always, reading about the fabulously fierce Margaret of Anjou, who no one would want to cross.

Ferocious Matilda is also always a great character to revisit. She really set the bar for others – unless we go back much further to Boudica who, while never ruling the entire nation, put up one hell of a fight against the invading Romans consolidated tribal kingdoms such as hers and ruled the land, successfully annexing most of Britain as a colony of their Empire.

Isabella of France, too, is always great reading value. This 'don't mess with me' queen never fails to make me grin for ear to ear with admiration.

Austere Eleanor of Aquitaine is perhaps my least favourite subject here, her period being my least favourite. It would have been improper to exclude her though. Her history I find too dragged out, by all her biographers. I'd have liked to have seen the proportion of this book given to Eleanor allocated instead to Mary I, but that's my ingrained Tudor fanaticism for you.

I like Helen Castor's more formal, unsentimental style. She meanders less than some on more personal details, which perhaps makes for a more remote study of each queen. This, combined with the requisitely compact nature of this lofty work, left me less intimately acquainted with each subject than I have through other biographers of the same queens. These others have the advantage of space to delve into the 'popular history' realms of emotional motive, leisurely interests, wardrobe preferences, dietary quirks, etc.

I find Castor closer to David Starkey or Eric Ives than Antonia Fraser or Alison Weir. A curiously masculine narrative by a woman on what is such a feministic endeavour. This factor offers balance, saving the work from degeneration into what might have become just another medieval Girl Power rant.

A good solid read, if more academically styled than my usual choices. I was not disappointed.