Sex With Kings: 500 Years Of Adultery, Power, Rivalry, And Revenge (2005) - Plot & Excerpts
I could not finish this book; I read up to page 120 and then skipped to the last chapter (p. 237-255). The organization of the book did not work for me; my main issue were the author's point of view, founding assumptions, and 'values', which I found distasteful.I thought the organization of this book was detrimental to its content. Each chapter was on a theme, one aspect of the king-mistress relationship; there were also subchapters for a more granular look at the theme. Because of this, Herman revisits the some of the same kings and mistresses for each theme. Louis XIV and Madames de Pompadour and du Barry, Charles II and Barbara Lady Castlemaine, and Ludwig of Bavaria and Lola Montez all come up repeatedly but a complete view never coheres. For me, the way the book was organized made it hard to keep reading and to glean information. Saying that Herman "writes history from a woman's perspective", as her author bio at the front of the book does, is technically true as Herman is a woman and does write history. She is not, as "a woman's perspective" implies, sympathetic to the women (or the men) she writes about. The people in Sex and Kings are one-dimensional. I think this is because of Herman's moralistic approach and mindset, which is really what made me give up. The overall impression I got is that Herman thinks all of the mistresses were greedy sluts. She doesn't consider the position of women in 17th and 18th century societies, or other things that would have pushed them into these choices.In the final chapter, Herman gets nasty. In discussing contemporary royalty, she describes the fiancee of Norwegian Crown Prince Haakon as "tainted" because she was a waitress and strawberry picker who hadn't finished her education and had an "illegitimate son". TAINTED??? That is a dementedly retrograde idea of morality. But then this is the what Herman wrote about the King of Serbia who married his mistress after the queen died, and was later killed by revolutionaries in the royal palace: "We find an almost biblical morality lesson in cases where the monarch made an unseemly marriage. Divine wrath was swift and sure. It was as if the Almighty did not approve of the king transforming fornication into the sanctified sex of marriage. For a worse sin than fornication was ignorance of one's proper place in the scheme of things. When a mere pawn became queen in the chessboard of life, the game was forfeit." (p.241) I just feel dirty reading this nonsense, and I find myself actually disliking the author.In writing this review, it occurred to me that this book is like a tabloid paper because they use provocative subject matter, cover image and, title while at the same time adhere to the same old busted morality.
With a detailed look into the lives of royal mistresses, Eleanor Herman’s book really opens your eyes to the scandalous position. Not all about the sex, the role of royal mistress was demanding physically, sexually and intellectually. Not only did a mistress bear SCADS of royal bastards and have to constantly be ready and willing to please the king, she helped guide his politics, kept the king in control, worked tirelessly, (and often to her own detriment), on her appearance all for the chance to be the “chosen” one. The book details the role of mistress in the courts, outlining the different aspects of mistress-hood.I’m a history geek- and I really enjoyed this little glimpse into the lives of many mistresses that graced the courts of Versailles and England as well as even a few comments about more recent courts. Although the book mostly focuses on the courts in France and England, it does also spend time on other nations such as the Austro-Prussian Empire, Spain etc. Not only was it a fascinating read, but it also was an exceptionally easy historical read, (why didn’t they teach THIS in my history classes?), and I was able to retain a fair amount of information.My one complaint about this book is the way its laid out. This book had the potential to be pretty great, (sex, lies, cat fights and royalty--- HELLO SMUT!), but it’s easy to confuse who’s sleeping with whom. Instead of focusing on one king and his lady loves, it chooses to separate chapters by aspects of the mistress-hood, (social conception, bastards, gifts, deaths, etc) and so it’s very easy to get Louis 14th mixed up with Louis 12th and easy to get mixed up which mistress was doing what when. The time line gets quite jumbled and I’ll admit I’d be pretty confused at times. Also, very little mention of Henry the 8th and his Harem of ladies, although I suppose one can devote an entire book to that debacle.Did I have a favorite mistress? Probably Nell Gwyn- who was one of two mistresses at the time. (Although my memory fails me as to whom she belonged to.) Nell was a protestant and the other mistress was a devout catholic. During a revolt when the people started to attack her- she reminded them she was the “Protestant Whore” and that they were angry at the catholic church and therefore should find the “Catholic Whore”. Heee. Protestant Whore has a nice ring to it.Overall I enjoyed this book- and I’d give it a 7/10- recommended to my fellow history geeks and those who get a kick out of Royal scandal of any kind.
What do You think about Sex With Kings: 500 Years Of Adultery, Power, Rivalry, And Revenge (2005)?
This book was a disappointment overall. Herman takes a fascinating topic and reduces it to a gossipy, disorganized read, largely judging the women discussed based on their looks and weight. Though I certainly learned a lot of historical information from this book, it seemed to exaggerate and scandalize many events of history, as if listening to a jealous woman at court discuss these subjects rather than an objective contemporary "historian". At times, the author seemed downright catty in discussing the merits or lack thereof of women who lived hundreds of years ago. I also found the structure of the book to be confusing as Herman jumps around between women and kings, centuries, and countries, returning to the same few women over an over again, often contradicting herself. It seems as though it would have been far more logical to organize this book in chronological order, as most history is reported, telling the entire story of a mistress and her king at once, rather than bouncing back and forth. I should have anticipated that this book may read like a historical tabloid when I saw Herman's author's picture on the back cover. In it she is dressed like a 16th century princess, complete with a crown. This leads me to believe that Herman's interest in her subject may not stem from a desire to tell the female side of history rather than from a bizarre wish to live in the past.
—Chrys
A fascinating subject - though the book was a little more light-weight than I was expecting. And the writing and organization were just *terrible*. She tries to link the stories thematically, but this means she keeps circling back to the same people and telling you other little scraps she'd failed to mention before - so eventually they all blur together into one big muddle. (Especially because they are all French, so most of the kings are named Louis and the mistresses all had names starting with M - Montespan and Maintenon and whatnot). I can't remember details of any one person - except maybe Lady Castlemain and Nell Gwynn, because they both really stood out. As I got muddled, I got bored and started skimming. A big meh from me. This should have been So Much Better.
—Kirsten
If you like history and nonfiction, this is an entertaining read. It's not as graphic as the title might suggest, instead it explores the influence that mistresses have had on kings for centuries. You can read about one mistress at a time, jump to different chapters in the book (it's done by mistress) and not worry about leaving it for long periods of time and returning, since each chapter could stand alone. I think it does a decent job of telling the other side of the story, discussing what a mistress needed to do in order to successfully keep a king's attention long enough to secure a place in society and a decent retirement. It's fun, it's accurate, and it's entertaining. That said, I don't think you could read it cover to cover without getting bored, since the overall impression of many of these relationships between mistress and king are the same. So read a chapter here and there, when you need to feel thankful that your most valuable assets are not declining with each day that you age. (It's also great if you're looking for strategies for keeping powerful men entertained... these mistresses were excellent at it. But I'm not sure any of us are up for the task any more. Can you imagine never yelling at your husband?)
—Kelly
