Very good book as far as writing and storytelling, but there was a lot I didn't agree with. I LOVED Lionheart, and it is topped only by To Kill a Mockingbird, Hawk of May, and Queen Defiant for my favorite book. But I was let down. Why? First of all, my beloved Hal. I see the Young King in the opposite he is portrayed here. The book says his dad was good to keep him on a short leash, but Henry II was stupid. He is a control freak who never let his son learn how to rule in the first place, and then he's all peeved with him for wanting to rule, but he COULD learn to rule if his dad would let him gain experience! I could go on and on 'cause I am a total Hal fan and don't view him as an irresponsible idiot at all. I think that if his dad would've let him learn how he could have become a great king. And who's a better ruler- Hal, who did the best he could without having experience, or Richard, who got plenty of experience and continued to be a bad ruler all his life, except maybe towards the end of his reign when he finally got some common sense? Plus also, this novel made it out as though Hal, Richard, and Geoffrey hated each other and were glad when the other one would die. They were BROTHERS! They were RAISED together! No matter what she says, no matter how many times they went to war, they were BROTHERS. And one more thing. HENRY BETRAYED ELEANOR, NOT the other way around. A man sleeping with another woman who is not his wife is WRONG. The whole "a-man-should-listen-to-his-body" deal is NOT an excuse. It was HENRY who was the traitor. Henry II was an evil traitor, Hal should've lived to become king, and Eleanor of Aquitaine was a good, strong woman. The sons of Henry II were NOT, as one reviewer put it, vengeful brats (except John) but good young men trying to do right for their kingdom and against their EVIL (yes, I said it) father, who was actually not a very good king at all. The sons had legitimate grievances (especially Hal), the biggest one being their father taking away their mother from them. Actually, I could enjoy the book and quickly read through it. It was very well-written. But I disagree strongly with the portrayals of the characters. Historical fiction that educates rather than titillates! Very refreshing! Must say I enjoyed this book. Penman kept the characters consistent and as true to their historical selves (as we know them) as possible. There is scant material available for the personal lives of the Plantagenets as most materials are official records yet while reading the hefty book (not for the faint of heart at 700+ pages) I never felt as if Penman were sensationalizing anything. For example, the rumors of Eleanor’s activities while in the Holy Land with her first husband included stories of physical relations with her uncle, with infidels and with any young soldier who came near. Penman has Eleanor make a comment about those rumors and then moves on. Same with the rumors that Henry II took as a mistress the young, French Princess intended for Richard. She has another character discuss it and dismiss it as absurd—as something Henry would not have risked doing. Having toured many sites in France that were associated with Eleanor including Poitiers and Fontevrault, I enjoyed the book’s narrative as it progressed through the geographical areas of the Plantagenets’ domains. Yes, I would highly recommend this book to people who enjoy Medieval history, people are interested in a historically powerful woman and people who want to read about family machinations.
What do You think about Devil's Brood (2008)?
I really enjoy her writing and I like learning about the history- What a soap opera of a family!
—Leah
Long but very interesting book about Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine and their children.
—Elsa
