Well, here goes nothing. I read The Lady in the Tower quite awhile ago, so my comments are from memory and a quick scan of the book. I cannot promise it will all make sense, but I shall try.

Things I liked:

1) Weir disregards Warnick's theory about Anne's child (Jan. 1536) being deformed, and argues that this theory has generally been dismissed by the historical community (pp.28-29)

2) I liked learning more about the five men: Rochford, Weston, Brereton, Smeaton, and Norris. I find they are often over looked.

3) Presentation of the dialogue between Anne and Kingston, and how these conversations made it into letters to Cromwell. A great source for learning more about Anne's state of mind during her imprisonment.

4) Counters most of Julia Fox's apologist piece on Lady Rochford.

5) Near the end of the book, Weir speaks to Elizabeth's personal memory of Anne.

6) Elizabeth is Anne's greatest legacy.

Things I disliked:

1)Prologue page 5: Anne's sixth nail? Really, using Sander in the first few pages?

2) Tendacy to write as though fiction, and presents Anne's inner most thoughts and feelings. At times, I found this annoying, and discrediting to the evidence presented.

3)I do not agree Henry and Anne's marriage was unhappy from the beginning.

4) Anne's previous sexual history. Come on, are we still stuck on this?

5) Witchcraft: poked its ugly head several times throughout the book. Anne was never charged with withcraft (to my knowledge), and this is heresy at best. Claims a reference from Chapyus as evidence: please, we all know he hated Anne and would do anything to discredit her.

6) At times, an over reliance on Chapyus, Sander, The Spanish Chronicle, and other Catholic sources. If you use them, do so with care, and give the reader a clearer understanding of their intentions, and why using them. The same from Protestant sources, such as Foxe. Similar criticism about Lancelot de Carles.

7) Cromwell as prime mover (pp. 68). Not sure. I agree Cromwell was involved, but he was Henry's man, so I doubt he would move to strike Anne down without Henry's knowledge and permission. I felt this argument removes blame from Henry and places it elsewhere.

8) The potential of Anne's guilt cannot be “lightly dismissed” (pp.87) If claiming so, provide evidence to back up this claim, and please don't pull a G.W Bernard and rely on a poem, which is clearly biased. We all know there was NO EVIDENCE to support Anne's guilt.

9) The whole issue surrounding Rochford's gulit (pp. 100). I think too much is being read into his words, especially since the publication of Warnicke's ridiculous thesis about homosexuality and sodomy. I did not come to that same conclusion.

I liked this book, despite my criticisms. Finally a book dedicated to Anne's fall. Yet, I cannot love the book. I found so many more things to dislike, and that stayed with me. Alison Weir is a great fiction writer, and at times I felt like I was reading a fictional account of Anne's life, rather than a serious study of her fall. I would still recommend Ives and Starkey. While their theories are often times opposite, they do a much better job seeing through the opacity of evidence. I am not sure how Ms. Weir puts out a book a year, without her writing and research suffering.

Lady K,

  My edition of the books does seem rather different. I have the hardcover, first UK edition, published in the fall of 2010, so page numbers, etc. could be different.

The note about Cromwell as the prime mover in the affair can be found: first paragraph, Chapter four “plotting the affair.” I found it interesting, and quite a statement, to begin a chapter about the plotting of Anne's downfall stating Cromwell was the man behind it.

I also found some of the evidence, and Ms. Weir analysis of it, contradictory. She seemed to rely on Chapyus, etc. when it suited her argument, and then abandon them when they did not.

I look forward to what you think about the rest of the book.