Julia Fox's book suffers from two problems:

First, there is very little document evidence about Jane Boleyn and this shows throughout the book. The book is more of a rehash of Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard's rise and fall. Jane remains a secondary figure, faceless. A whole person never develops which depletes and throws into serious question Fox's thesis. If you want to challenge the historical “assumption” that Jane was a vicious, power-hungry women then present evidence that argues against it. Never do I feel Jane deserves my sympathy or empathy.

Second, Fox's work is simply an apologetic piece attempting to buy into the current Tudor craze. I appreicate Fox's attempt to bring Jane's life to light, but DO NOT change history, or make assumptions about what happened, in order to fit your theoretical position. For a women who claims to be educted in history, her works falls considerably short of quality historical research.

I read the book, but it did not change my opinion about Jane, or did I learn anything I already did not know from reading far better writers and historians. If you are interested, please read the book and develop you own opinions. I would love to hear them.

The books issues remind me of Alison Weir's book on Katherine Swynford. A similar lack of historical documentation means Katherine never emerges. Rather, her lover and husband, John of Gaunt come through more clearly. When historical source are scarce, and primary sources deal more with major players, the Jane Boleyn's of the world face into obscurity.

I was wondering about that book too… Thanks for the advice

ILLs don`t always work round here due to the Franco/Anglo divide.I have had several books on order for over a year now…

I just found the book on one of my bookshelves…

DuchessofBrittany said:

Julia Fox's book suffers from two problems:

First, there is very little document evidence about Jane Boleyn and this shows throughout the book. The book is more of a rehash of Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard's rise and fall. Jane remains a secondary figure, faceless. A whole person never develops which depletes and throws into serious question Fox's thesis. If you want to challenge the historical “assumption” that Jane was a vicious, power-hungry women then present evidence that argues against it. Never do I feel Jane deserves my sympathy or empathy.

Second, Fox's work is simply an apologetic piece attempting to buy into the current Tudor craze. I appreicate Fox's attempt to bring Jane's life to light, but DO NOT change history, or make assumptions about what happened, in order to fit your theoretical position. For a women who claims to be educted in history, her works falls considerably short of quality historical research.

I read the book, but it did not change my opinion about Jane, or did I learn anything I already did not know from reading far better writers and historians. If you are interested, please read the book and develop you own opinions. I would love to hear them.

The books issues remind me of Alison Weir's book on Katherine Swynford. A similar lack of historical documentation means Katherine never emerges. Rather, her lover and husband, John of Gaunt come through more clearly. When historical source are scarce, and primary sources deal more with major players, the Jane Boleyn's of the world face into obscurity.

Can I propose a third problem? It has the misfortune of being published after a study that pretty much rectified out understanding of Jane Boleyn, and did so in a swifter fashion than Foxe’s unnecessarily lengthy study. The work in question was a PhD thesis on Tudor women by J. Rowley-Williams (1998). In one chapter, Rowley-Williams gives us a good examination of Jane, offering a plausible argument for her lack of complicity in Anne and George Boleyn’s downfall, yet a role in the Katherine Howard/Thomas Culpepper affair. She does not seek to clear Jane’s name; merely re-evaluate the woman’s actions and address why she has been perceived in the manner that she has.

I absolutely agree with you on the other points, particularly the first one. I am a huge fan of the biography genre, so much so that my MA dissertation was on a particular figure. Yet I question why some authors chose a subject so devoid of sources that they must dedicate most pages to background information. Admittedly it is very hard to balance research on that person (or persons) with information on contemporary happenings, but there is nothing worse than reading a biography on a Tudor figure only to be given a thorough account of the Wars of the Roses, the Habsburg-Valois conflicts, etc. Context is needed but I also want to know about the figure who is supposed to be the centre of the study.

And I think a number of Weir's books can be cited here including her awful one on Edward II's consort, Isabella!

I have to agree about her bio of Isabella. She was a fascinating figure, but I couldn't escape Weir's endless use of “could have”, “probably”, “must have”, and my favorite, “doubtless”. It becomes more distracting than whatever theory she's pushing.