The King’s Mother by Annie Garthwaite is an excellent historical fiction and is the sequel to the amazing novel, Cecily.

I absolutely loved Cecily, so I could not wait to read the continuation. As before, Ms. Garthwaite presents a stunning narrative in the voice of Cecily, wife of the late Richard of York, and mother to Kings Edward IV and Richard III.

This book takes us from 1461 to 1487. The research, the detail, the presentation…it is all excellent, engaging, and thought-provoking.
I devoured every moment of this gem.

The historical notes at the end to describe what happened afterwards also adds a lot to the novel.

I think my favorite parts were the interactions, discussions, and relationship between Cecily and Margaret Beaufort. It really drew me in.

I can’t recommend these two novels enough.

5/5 stars

Thank you NG and Penguin General UK - Fig Tree, Hamish Hamilton, Viking, Penguin Life, Penguin Business, Viking for this wonderful arc and in return I am submitting my unbiased and voluntary review and opinion.

I am posting this review to my GR and Bookbub accounts immediately and will post it to my Amazon, Instagram, and B&N accounts upon publication on 7/11/24.

Annie has done it once again! I absolutely loved this book. Hilary Mantel meets the Wars of the Roses in this page-turning novel. In this second book, we return to Cecily as she grapples with Edward’s reign, the Woodvilles and witnesses a new dynasty unfold in the shadows. I loved this book even more than CECILY, but I am extremely biased as Edward and Elizabeth are my favourite royal couple. Highly recommend for both historical fiction and literary fiction lovers!

Cecily Neville was a powerhouse of a human being and while of course it’s not possible to know for sure how she thought and felt during her lifetime, ‘The King’s Mother’ makes her ALIVE in a way that for this reader and 15th century history buff is absolutely thrilling. As with the first book, there is an immediacy to the writing that helps to make Cecily’s character relatable to the modern reader despite being very firmly situated in her own time period. Annie Garthwaite has done a terrific job of not attributing any present-day values or beliefs to her protagonist: Cecily thinks, feels and behaves like a noblewoman in the late Middle Ages. She may be frustrated with the limits of her power as a woman in a strongly patriarchal society, but she isn’t ruminating on proto-feminism or railing against her fate; she’s exercising her (considerable) influence and pushing the boundaries of her position through sheer force of will. As a result, she feels real to the reader and we care about what happens to her.

And a LOT happens. The relentless pace of the internecine squabbles and outright warfare of this time period must have been exhausting to live and strategise through. It’s hard enough sometimes to read about. It may be a cliche, but “I laughed, I cried” is also an accurate summation of my reading experience. Perhaps because the book is so fast paced, the occasional line paragraph depicting Cecily’s reflections on loved ones lost pack an outsized emotional wallop.

I am not sure how I felt about the ending of the book. It’s always interesting to see how authors (be they novelists or historians) interpret Richard III’s actions upon the death of his brother Edward IV, because even in the historical record they can come across as somewhat out of character. The way Garthwaite writes it up makes sense in the context of her characterisation of Richard and of Elizabeth Woodville, but I’m not entirely convinced Cecily would throw Edward’s children under the bus like that, regardless of how she felt about their mother.

I really enjoyed picking up Cecily's story where the previous book finished. Once again, this book focusses on events from her point of view and it covers a lot of ground. My own ancestors from this period would have been peasants and although their lives would have been hard, I think living a life at court would have been far worse in many ways. Married off to strangers, sent away from family, the pressures of having to bear male heirs, constant competition and political manoeuvrings, wars and loss of loved ones - the author piles all of this into this book and it's exhausting! The fact that Cecily was at the heart of power for such a long time and managed to outlive family, friends and enemies is astonishing.

I am no historian and I have no idea how accurate this story is, but it felt well researched and was a thought-provoking and exciting read.

Thanks to NetGalley and the publisher for an e-copy for review.

A new take on an old stiry our story well if your British and along time ago War of the Roses time

So Ceillia King Edwards Mother the 1st offical Kings Mother's the heroine of this novel has a lot to do to keep the crown in the house of York. There are several Mother's desperate for their sons to be on the throne it was much more cut n throat than today even with the Harry, Megan dynamics, but ......Well different times.

Anyhow back to the novel there are so many twist and turns turncoats back stabbing it was about more than staying in power or trying to get it, you also had to stay alive. Trust no one even siblings this was a dangerous time to live let alone in the high society, and this novel coveys this and so much more. Its a great read.

So what is my rating I'm going to give it 5 stars it's gripping well written and thought provoking so yes 5 stars for me.

I was lucky to be invited to read this early copy of The King's Mother. . I had read the previous book , Cecily and this book certainly lives up to expectations .
This is a real page turner, I literally read it in one sitting. It's a compelling read and I found Cecily Neville an intriguing and resilient character.
The detailed historical aspects of the novel are interesting and the attention to detail is outstanding.Annie Garthwaite has incorporated her own interpretation of the character's reasoning behind their actions which I found both fascinating and thought provoking.
Cecily is a strong and sometimes ruthless character,, she is the driving force behind the scenes that everyone turns to.
I especially liked the relationship between Cecily and Margaret Beaufort, both resilient women , whose love and ambition for their children is boundless. Both women respect and distrust each other equally and underestimate the lengths each will go to protect the ones they love.
I also liked the Authors portrayal of Richard of Gloucester and his relationships between his brothers, his mother and his wife
I was sorry to finish this book and look forward to reading the next one. Thoroughly recommended

I was thrilled to hear Annie Garthwaite was working on a sequel to Cecily, which was one of my favourite reads of 2021! This book, although, a little slow at the start, does not disappoint. Once we were in the meat of the story, it raced along, covering decades of bloody history with an intimacy and level of detail that centred the internal lives of the characters. I greatly admire Garthwaite's talent for characterisation, particularly with her strength for dialogue. The tangible fierceness in her characters, particularly the women, is satisfying and thrilling to read, and as a reader, you find yourself even occasionally shifting alliances, such is Garthwaite's skill for making all her characters and their motivations understood. Highly recommended for fans of well-written historical fiction!

As a huge fan of historical fiction, particularly the Wars of the Roses, I couldn’t wait to get my hands on this novel & I have to say that I loved it. Following on from Cecily, Annie Garthwaite’s debut, this novel covers many tumultuous years of the crown being passed backwards & forwards between York & Lancaster. As a huge Ricardian, I was slightly worried that the author’s sympathies may lie with Lancaster, but that proved not to be the case. The story is written from Cecily’s point of view & as mother to two York kings, her loyalties are obvious. The novel is beautifully written & reminded me of my absolute favourite author, Sharon Penman. I can give no higher praise. 10/10

The much anticipated next read from this author is here and it doesn't disappoint. The time period which is usually dominated by a male story and male lens sees a fresh look and a feminine take here. This is well received and definitely welcomed by this reader.

Steeped in historical detail making it a compelling read but with the fresh pair of female eyes, this makes it even more wondrous and thought provoking.

A couple of years ago, I read and loved Cecily which covers around thirty years of the life of Cecily Neville from her aged around sixteen to the moment when her son Edward IV takes the throne. A few months later, I was at a book signing for a well-known author of historical fiction and biography. Since the event had been centred around the women of the Wars of the Roses, I asked her if she had read Garthwaite's novel and she said yes but that she had thought the ending was a 'cop out', finishing before all the mess of the Yorkist in-fighting. When I explained that a sequel was in the pipeline, we both agreed that this all made more sense. But what this illustrated was that Cecily was an easier novel to write being centred around a nice linear narrative with a clear foe (Margaret of Anjou/Henry VI) and a neat finale. It takes a brave writer to take on a tale of a mother whose sons started trying to kill each other. The King's Mother is dealing with family factions, fighting, feuds and fraternity betrayed. It was always going to be incredibly difficult to get right and ultimately its finale falls into fantasy.

The first point which caught my attention came in the opening lines. Garthwaite describes Cecily's new title as 'The King's Mother' to be one that has never been used before in Britain. The expectation is that the mother of the monarch should have the right to the title 'Queen Dowager'. If said mother cannot claim that title, it must mean that the monarch is not the son of a King. And if this is the case, it means that there has been a break in the succession. And this spells trouble. But strictly speaking, Garthwaite is mistaken. Cecily Neville is not the first woman to hold this title.

During the final years of her life, Cecily Neville's own grandmother also held that style. Of course, there are a few key differences here, not least of which was the fact that Katherine Swynford was not in fact the biological mother of Henry IV. She was the widow of his father John of Gaunt and thus held the title as a note of respect to the wife of a beloved parent and also because she had been a significant adult in the monarch's life since he was a very young child. She had served his late mother, been governess to his sisters and even attended on Henry's own late wife during several of her births. And then there was the small matter of her being John of Gaunt's mistress for twenty years before they ever even made it down the altar and being mother to four of his half-siblings. As well as her role in his father's life, Henry IV seems to have just been fond of her.

But the other big difference between Katherine Swynford and her granddaughter is that Katherine stayed resolutely out of politics. She more or less retired from public life with the death of her husband. What is remarkable is that she managed to stay on the right side of Richard II during this period. For all of her unconventional lifestyle, most people who knew her seem to have liked her. In contrast to many other royal mistresses, I think here particularly of Alice Perrars, Katherine Swynford seems to have salvaged her scandalous reputation. I remember reading a chronicler who noted that she 'loved the Duke of Lancaster and the children she had by him and she showed it'. Through her conduct, she convinced those around her that she made her choices for love rather than ambition. Cecily Neville does seem to have loved her husband Richard of York. But she was definitely motivated by ambition.

The premise of this novel is that four women are duking it out to be the King's Mother, namely Cecily of York, Marguerite of Anjou, Elizabeth Wydville (Woodville is an incorrect spelling) and Margaret Beaufort. They all want their son on the throne. Of course, Marguerite of Anjou was queen to deposed Henry VI and Elizabeth Wydville spent twenty years as queen to Edward IV. Both would have the right to the more traditional Queen Dowager title. The two true challengers are Cecily and Margaret Beaufort.

I was interested to see how Garthwaite would approach the implosion of the House of York. I was sincerely impressed by how in the previous novel, she seemed to embrace Cecily's complexities. Historical fiction tends to try and cram medieval women into a historical romance mood and the women of the Wars of the Roses rarely fit. I began this novel with high expectations. I really thought it would live up to its predecessor. But a couple of the tweets in praise did give me some pause as I noted a few Ricardians. I remarked to a friend, 'I really hope that she doesn't try to pin the whole thing on Margaret Beaufort'. And reader, o reader, that is exactly what happened. It has been a long time since I felt quite so disappointed by a book.

To preface this, I heartily enjoyed the first 90% of the novel. It was compelling, it was interesting and even where it gave me some misgivings, I could forgive where it veered away from strict historical accuracy. I have been working really hard on being less of a complete kill-joy when it comes to 'fantasy history'. I completely understand why people enjoy Bridgerton. I even recently watched an episode of Reign and it was quite fun. I get it. Sometimes writers of historical fiction make imaginative leaps. But it gets very sensitive when you try to do that with the Wars of the Roses.

Of all the men who sought the throne during this period, they pretty much all had nasty rumours spread about their mothers. Marguerite of Anjou was insinuated to have committed adultery to conceive her son since her husband was supposedly too catatonic to do the deed. Cecily Neville was supposed to have conceived Edward IV (but just Edward IV) in adultery with an archer. Elizabeth Wydville was supposedly a witch and also not legally married to Edward IV since he had been secretly pre-contracted to Eleanor Butler (nee Talbot) beforehand anyway. Elizabeth of York was rumoured to have had a passionate affair with her uncle Richard while his wife was still alive. I do find it interesting that there were not the same rumours around Margaret Beaufort but given she gave birth at thirteen and the delivery messed her up so badly she never conceived again, perhaps it was just an area where rumourmongers feared to tread. The point is that unless we claim that women in this period were just a bunch of trollops putting it about wherever, the fact that there are so many nasty stories rather implies that none of them are true.

There have always been stories like this over time - even John of Gaunt was rumoured to have been a changeling after the real prince had been accidentally suffocated as a baby. Indeed, it was the 'warming-pan baby' rumour that brought down James II just over two hundred years later. This is how things were done back then. These days we have social media. Or writing passive-aggressive memoirs about how your brother once shoved you over the dog bowl and broke your necklace. Not so much has changed.

I had been really impressed by how the slur on Cecily in the previous novel was dealt with. Garthwaite simply did not give it the time of day. It was manifestly ridiculous that a woman like Cecily who had such pride in her breeding and position would ever lower herself to copulate with someone low-born even had she not been married. I also appreciated how Garthwaite treated the insinuations about Elizabeth Wydville being a witch. She has Cecily writing angry letters to the Earl of Warwick's wife asking if he has lost his mind. Garthwaite argues that women had a confederacy against accusations of witchcraft since it had the potential to cause such chaos and pain. So far, so good.

But here is where the novel starts to veer off the rails. Similar to Cecily, Marguerite of Anjou also had a lot of pride in her position. She was also queen and would not have had the privacy for adultery. We simply do not have enough information about Henry VI's state of mind to say definitively whether he and his wife ever consummated. Garthwaite's version of the man was not capable but I could accept this as her imaginative leap.

The next leap comes around Edward IV and the pre-contract story. This one is interesting. Of all the scurrilous rumours, it probably has the greatest ring of truth because given his later secret and ill-advised marriage to Elizabeth Wydville, Edward IV clearly had form in making rash promises to women in front of priests in order to get them into bed. But. A pre-contract without any witnesses was never really going to stick. Actual marriages have witnesses. Also Richard III never submitted the case to an ecclesiastical court which was the official procedure, probably because he knew that it was never going to stick. Most damning of all, he only started spreading the story after an embarrassing episode where he got a priest loyal to him to preach a sermon about how Cecily Neville had conceived Edward IV in adultery and thus Richard III was the only true born York son left. When it became clear that nobody was buying this ridiculous story, he changed tack to saying Edward IV's marriage was unlawful.

As is probably clear, I have some major niggles with this book. One of the biggest ones is Garthwaite's omission of Richard III's repeated assertions that his mother committed adultery. Given that her protagonist is said mother, who in real life is on the record at being horrified at what her son was saying about her, it is immediately clear that this is a book written to whitewash Richard's reputation. In the Titulus Regius that proclaimed him King, Richard III literally had it emphasised in writing that he was the 'true born' son of York. There is no way that Cecily would have missed this and it makes the whole plot point of her confiding to Richard the tale of Edward's first marriage completely implausible.

Cecily of York was plagued by her sons. Edward IV made a wholly inappropriate marriage which caused such deep political divisions that the House of York was more or less doomed ever afterwards. George of Clarence rebelled. And then rebelled again. And then again until they just had to kill him. But the son who insulted her personally was Richard of Gloucester. Garthwaite's failure to address her heroine's reaction to this horrifying libel makes it very difficult to take her novel seriously.

The biggest disappointment is that Cecily introduced its lead as a really interesting female lead and then The King's Mother lets that character down. Cecily is a woman of steel. As the sequel opens, she has the urge to run and embrace George and Richard newly returned from exile but she controls her emotions as she always does. For me, one of the most powerful scenes in The King's Mother came when she goes to visit George in his prison cell. She looks at her fully-grown drunken, snotty, sobbing son with disgust and frustrated love. She holds him as he whimpers about how badly he has been treated. And then she makes arrangements for him to die, having first made certain that he gets a chance to confess before a priest before the end. I had long read that Edward IV spared his brother from being hung, drawn and quartered as a favour to their mother but I had not thought of how a mother would react when she knows that her son is endangering the kingdom. This was truly thought-provoking.

But this powerhouse which Garthwaite creates here is not the same character who gazes wide-eyed at Richard and agrees that if he deposes his apparently illegitimate nephews, then in a few years the boys will get over it all and then they can have high offices in his kingdom as Lord Bastard. Cecily Neville would never have asked not to be told where the princes were apparently being hidden away because otherwise she would not have been able to overcome her grandmotherly instincts to ride to them. She had been overcoming her emotions since her earliest childhood. This is wildly inconsistent and frankly rather absurd.

But most of all, Garthwaite is asking us to believe in the common refrain of the Ricardians that Edward V and his brother Richard were no threat to their uncle once they were declared illegitimate. This again is mind-bogglingly naive. Acts of Parliament could be rewritten. This happened all the time during the Wars of the Roses. If the boys were no threat at all, why was their sister Elizabeth of York still a prized matrimonial asset? If the boys were no threat at all, why was it so easy for Henry VII to overturn the Titulus Regius? If the boys were no threat at all, why did Richard III fail to produce them when his nobles were all deserting him as a child murderer? Garthwaite's novel suggests rather pathetically that Richard wanted to protect their privacy which ... does not make sense.

If I step back from The King's Mother, it feels that Cecily was not the focus of the novel. It is not about her. Instead the spotlight is on Richard and on making him look cuddly. Cecily gains a glimpse of him unclothed and discovers his scoliosis. In contrast to her vitriol about the 'mad Henry', she is immediately sympathetic to his plight. Richard tells her bravely that he does his best, prays regularly and tries to 'live clean'. We are definitely supposed to believe that he is wholly faithful to his wife. Garthwaite makes no mention of Richard's known bastard children. In fairness, these seem to have been mostly fathered prior to his marriage.

From everything I have read, I could still more or less believe in Garthwaite's version of Richard for the majority of the novel. He was loyal to Edward IV. He seems to have done his best to stay out of the way of his Wydville in-laws by keeping to himself up in the North. But the Wydvilles really were bad news and he could not keep ahead of them forever. Garthwaite does not mention that Elizabeth Wydville is rumoured to have stolen her husband's signet ring and thus ordered the death of the Earl of Desmond who had urged the king against marrying her. Supposedly the executioner got carried away and also killed the Earl's two small children. She also urged her husband to order the death of George of Clarence. Richard had solid reason to fear her influence and without the protection of Edward IV, there was little to stop her turning her sights towards Gloucester. After Edward IV died, Richard could no longer avoid the fight.

There was so much potential in the scene where Cecily looks upon her grandson Edward V and sees that he is entirely his mother's creature. He has lived twelve years entirely surrounded by Wydvilles and feels no loyalty towards his father's kin. Perhaps it is understandable. Edward V had to be born in the sanctuary of Westminster Abbey due to the betrayal of his father's relatives. I cannot even imagine the trauma that Elizabeth Wydville went through having to flee the Tower of London in the middle of the night while heavily pregnant and hauling her young daughters. I would guess it is the kind of thing that stays with you, returns in nightmares, and which would be very difficult to forgive. But Cecily gazes at young Edward, sees the tufts of hair on his chin and knows that there will be no turning his heart back towards Richard.

George RR Martin plays with this idea in Game of Thrones. [spoiler]When Tyrion stands trial for the murder of Joffrey, Grand Maester Pycelle lies about Joffrey's character, portraying him as a holy child king who knew 'his uncle loved him not'. The reader knows that Joffrey was a psychopathic tyrant and that whoever did him in had done Westeros a favour. Here, the misshapen uncle is the falsely-accused victim of societal prejudice.[/spoiler]Garthwaite lacks the courage to follow through and portray Edward V as a tyrant in waiting and I wish she had. Had the Wydvilles moved quicker or been able to summon support to face down the Northern forces, the realm would have been under the rule of a puppet monarch governed by Wydvilles. There was likely to have been just as much bloodshed.

When I think of the dilemma that faced Richard III, I wonder what I might have done. Or more accurately, how I might have advised my husband. Richard III was facing losing his estates, money and his life. He had a young son and looking at what happened to the Desmond boys, children were not immune from being murdered by the Wydvilles. I do not condone committing war crimes. There is never a justification for the murder of children. But I can see why Richard III felt he had no choice.

In Garthwaite's afterword, she says that her book 'is not the place' to discuss the 'uncertain fate' of the Princes but 'suffice it to say there is no conclusive evidence that they were murdered by Richard III or died during his lifetime'. She then immediately claims that there is 'strong circumstantial evidence to suggest that they survived beyond 1485'. She finishes with the words 'The search for conclusive answers continues and no one awaits them with more anticipation than I'. This line made me heave a deep sigh.



When you read the original sources, or at least if you read them with an open mind, you realise that the Princes in the Tower was never 'the ultimate cold case'. It was never a mystery. The boys were put under guard in the Tower of London. For a while they were allowed out to exercise and play at archery. Then they started to be shut up in the White Tower and nobody saw them. Nobody could get past the keeper of the Tower Richard Brackenbury without a signed warrant from Richard III. Even if either of them had been in the area which they were not, neither the Duke of Buckingham nor Margaret Beaufort could have snuck in.

But the aspect which convinced me was when I first read the full text of the vow which Richard III swore before witnesses before the York girls would agree to leave sanctuary. They knew that they would not be allowed to stay in there. Richard III had form for removing people from sanctuary after the Battle of Tewkesbury. Negotiators had made it clear that his patience had run out. But still, given his precarious position on the throne and dreadful reputation given everyone knew what he had done, Richard III was looking for a positive public relations opportunity. Since he could not produce the princes as he had had them murdered, he wanted to bring forth their sisters without physically dragging them out. The vow is bleak. These are not the words of a loving uncle wanting a family reunion. This is someone who knows that the York girls and their mother have no reason to trust him and that they know what he has done. He specifically vowed that he would not put them in the Tower. As in he would not do to them what he did to their brothers.

I feel that I am descending into an absolute essay about the Princes in the Tower. Suffice to say that I had a whole Unsolved Mysteries phase a few years ago. I also have a lot of theories about D.B. Cooper. I grew up in York and I remember as a child learning about the Wars of the Roses, I was really sad that 'my' side had lost. Funnily enough, we later moved to Lancashire but the more I learned about the period, the more I realised that the Lancaster side lost too. It was only because the Plantagenet in-fighting completely destroyed the noble line that had ruled for 350 years that the Tudors were able to walk in and claim the throne.

I read a lot about Tudor propagandists and the more I read, the less I buy it. Tracking Richard III's rise to power, it is stunning quite how many people who opposed him ended up being summarily executed without trial. Hastings, Earl of Rivers, Richard Grey, Duke of Buckingham. No wonder people started shutting up. Philippa Langley and company may slap on some excess soft tissue to plump up the facial reconstruction and make him look friendlier, but you cannot ignore that these are the actions of a tyrant.

I also find it interesting how Ricardians are always so quick to dismiss Thomas More's writing as the words of a Tudor sycophant. This is a very strange opinion given Thomas More was executed by a Tudor monarch for failing to toe the line. His records on the Princes in the Tower seem to have been written for his own interest rather in the manner of a modern true crime podcast. He also held a strong moral opposition to tyranny, hence why he later opposed the King making himself Head of the Church. More's writing also hits on enough points which can be verifiable such as his detail that the princes' bodies were dumped under a staircase and then two child skeletons were found under a staircase during the Stuart period. This is not 'history's greatest unsolved mystery'. Everybody knew whodunnit. But for some reason Richard III has inspired this posthumous personality cult which has prompted some pretty wild and imaginative theories. All of them seriously lacking in evidence.

Part of me gets it. I have a wild crush on John of Gaunt. I think he's hot. When I did teacher training in Lancaster, I was genuinely pretty excited to be living in one of his strongholds. There is actually a pub named after him. It was awesome. For me, it's the love story. There are other OTP in history but even the grand passions such as that of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn can be argued away by boring political and social factors (eg. Henry VIII didn't break with Rome for love of a woman, but he needed a son, he wanted the cash from the monasteries, undosweiter). But you can read John of Gaunt up down, left and right and there really is no other explanation for his marriage to Katherine Swynford than that he loved her, had always loved her and wanted to finally be with her openly. So I completely get the whole Men Of History Are Hot thing. But. I've also read about John of Gaunt on the political sphere and can accept that Dude Got Issues. He had a horrific track record as a war leader. His entitled attitudes towards tax makes my blood boil. My point is that I can still be a fangirl without bending the truth to 'fix' his flaws.

Like I say, I am really trying to be more laid back about fantasy history. But this is not just casting skinny Jonathan Rhys Myers as giant Henry VIII without so much as a fat suit in sight. Bridgerton takes the Regency aesthetic and adds a diverse representation because why shouldn't everyone get to enjoy bonnety romances. Reign reimagines Francis II of France as a golden haired dreamboat and all the women wander around wearing what look like prom dresses from 2011. But Ricardians are doing something far murkier. They are trying to pretend that a murder never happened or else they are trying to get their guy off on all charges.

In The King's Mother, Garthwaite has carefully cherry-picked which historical facts reflect well upon Richard III and airbrushed those which do not. She has done so to make it appear less likely that Richard III ordered the death of two children. This is a creative choice which gives me the same moral queasiness that I get when I hear about women who marry serial killers by post. The excuses are the same. He is just misunderstood. You don't know him like I do. He did not get a fair hearing. There is more to the story.

I suspect that the 'strong circumstantial evidence' that Garthwaite is referring to relates to Philippa Langley's recent book. Gareth Streeter has delved into the flaws in that work with far greater compassion and sensitivity than I could probably manage. He hails Philippa Langley as a history hero for managing to orchestrate the excavation of Richard III's remains. I want to be able to do the same. But again, her investigative flaws betray her bias which is once more all around protecting someone who ordered the death of children.

It probably seems that I am over-reacting to this book. I've read worse and indeed ones that are more misleading. In online forums about history, you can spot the fans of Gillipa Phregory among the people who post that Elizabeth Wydville put a curse on those who killed her sons and that that was why the Tudors died out in the male line. But I think that time and period dramas have made us numb to the horrors of this period. Reading The King's Mother made me remember George of Clarence. I told my partner about how Clarence had been allowed to choose his own method of execution and asked him to guess the choice. The look of utter horror on his face when I told him it was being drowned in wine made me remember again that these are not just words in a history book - these are real things that really happened. Those boys did not just evaporate. Someone killed them in cold blood. I think that I just feel so disappointed when Garthwaite's first book was so good.

There are a number of details in More's description of the princes deaths which stand out in my memory. One is the fact that Richard ordered Sir Richard Brackenbury to do it and he refused. The compromise was that Brackenbury would allow someone else in with a warrant and then they would do it. That person was Sir James Tyrrell who later confessed to the crime but once more, he did not do it himself but rather hired two people. So many layers of separation between the man who wanted it done and the men who carried out the deed. Not only are these strange details to fabricate but they also highlight that everyone knew this to be an act of evil.

But the main thing that sticks out in my mind is the description of the young Edward V's final weeks. He made confession repeatedly because he was afraid of death. He seems to have been an intelligent child and he had spent his whole twelve years of life being educated to be a king. Of course he knew what happened to kings who were deposed. Edward II, Richard II, Henry VI. Their days were always numbered. More's detail that after Richard's coronation, the boy 'never did up his hose' is a telling one. Edward V spent his final days too depressed to get out of bed. He knew that he had lost everything and he knew that some day the door to his room would open and in would walk a man who his uncle had sent to murder him. He knew that nobody was coming to save him and that there was nothing he could do. Whatever kind of king he would have been, that end is utterly heartbreaking.

After reading Cecily, I bought copies of it for various friends and family members who are history fans. I raved about it. I will not be doing the same with this book since it shows clear signs of bias-led imaginative leaps which aim to misdirect the reader. I do not say this because I believe that any Ricardians will be swayed. They never are. But more for the undecideds, to point out that The King's Mother is a book with an agenda which it sets out to achieve through massaging the truth to suit the beliefs of its author. I always remember the closing pages of Wolf Hall which talks about the perils of telling stories about the dead, of taking up their skulls and making them speak. Hilary Mantel said that it was her admission that in writing historical fiction, she was possibly making a choice that was wrong, even morally wrong. Unfortunately, Garthwaite's novel is an example where this is the case.

Cecily was one of my favourite books of 2021, and when I heard this book was coming out I was over the moon. I am so thankful the publisher gave me an arc of this book. As I expected, it was fantastic from start to finish.

The King's Mother picks up right where the first book ended, with Edward on the throne of England, and Cecily by his side as the King's mother. Cunning, hard and strategic, Cecily was as compelling as she was in the first book. Once again, her personality was one of my favourite things of the book. She wasn't always likeable, on the contrary, but I always cheered for her, and admired her strenght of character.

After Cecily herself, the many different relationships she had with other characters were definitely my favourite aspect of the book. First of all, her relationships with her three sons. Obviously, her bond to Edward was one of the main theme of the book, but her relationships with George and Richard were equally well drawn, complex and emotional. Richard was one of my favourite characters in the book, I felt so much for him. Annie Garthwaite practically turned me into a Ricardian. The ending was especially emotional for me.

Cecily's unexpected friendship with Margaret Beaufort was also one of the highlights of the story for me. Margaret was a beautifully drawn, complex character, and I loved the similarities between the two women. I was genuinely saddened by the knowledge of where the story would go.

Another great character was Anne Neville, who, despite being a secondary character, was a perfect match for Richard and had a strategic, practical mind similar to Cecily, which I greatly appreciated. This book was definitely filled with fantastic female characters.

All in all, this sequel to Cecily was everything I was hoping for and more. I can't recommend this series enough, and I can't wait to read more by Annie Garthwaite.

I absolutely LOVED this book! This is better than Cecily and probably the best book about the Wars of the Roses I've read in 20 years.
Cecily is the She-Wolf of England, she is the master diplomat, survivor, mother and wife. She rules the family from within, the spider in the centre of all the intrigue weaving the web to ultimately keep her family safe. Motherhood and its roles and feelings are done behind closed doors, her private side.
It's a fantastic read and I'll be recommending it to everyone!

In "The King's Mother" by Annie Garthwaite, readers are immersed in the War of the Roses from a captivating female perspective. Cecily emerges as a formidable figure—a strong and admirable mother of the King. While her strength is undeniable, her character presents a complexity that makes her hard to truly embrace. Graithwaite skillfully weaves a narrative that mirrors a strategic game of chess, captivating readers with each move and decision.

So grateful to have been given the chance to read an arc of this. I absolutely loved Cecily and I didn't even realise there was a sequel coming until I saw this on Netgalley.
The book picks up not far from where Cecily ended, and covers the reminder of Cecily Plantagenet (Nee Neville)'s life and shares her side of what happened once her son Edward IV became king through to her son Richard III's death and the start of the Tudor era.
As with Cecily, this book does not disappoint. I did take longer than usual to read this, but this wasn't due to me not liking it.
Hopefully Annie Garthwaite does anymore historical fiction books like this.

As a fan of Annie Garthwaite's previous work, "Cecily," I eagerly delved into her latest novel, "The King's Mother." And once again, she didn't disappoint. In fact, she exceeded my expectations, delivering a captivating and moving tale that offers a fabulous female perspective on the tumultuous era of the Wars of the Roses.

From the first page, I was drawn into the world of Cecily and her sons. Garthwaite's portrayal of Cecily is fabulous, presenting her as a woman of ambition, loyalty, and indomitable resilience.

What truly sets "The King's Mother" apart is its exploration of the female experience during a time dominated by men and political intrigue. Garthwaite brings to light the challenges faced by women like Cecily, and Margaret Beaufort, who navigated the treacherous waters of power and ambition with determination. It's a perspective that is both enlightening and empowering, offering readers a fresh understanding of the roles women played in shaping history.

Possibly the best historical novel I have yet to read! I felt the author was Cecily Neville! I was living her hard fifteenth century life - I was there in the room with her remonstrating with her philandering son ,the King, I felt her every emotion, her frustrations, her anger, her horror of what she was about to do when son was pitied against son! Her deep love for her ‘Son in Splendour’ and the regret she felt for her son whose loyalty bound him to his brother, the King! How could she have given birth to a son such as George! And her nemesis Margaret, their lives running parallel! Oh this book left me breathless, tearful and so very involved! Her conclusion was so plausible though left me emotionally drained! My admiration for this author is boundless - I sincerely hope her next book will be out very soon!

I have read the first book in this series and enjoyed it. The characters are familiar and I feel that the details are well researched and written with detailed knowledge of the period. I took a while to get into the story, in spite of having read the previous book. When I was into the story I enjoyed it thoroughly. It is great to read about a strong woman having power and influence in the 15th century! I am not sure if Cecily Neville was a good person but she’s certainly seems to have been a strong one!
Recommended

The cousin's war is my favorite period of history. This historical novel, told from the perspective of Cecily Neville, strong mother of two kings, helps to make things clearer in what is a very complicated story of betrayals, battles and executions. The characterization is believable; I particularly liked the portrayal of Elizabeth as an emotional wreck, and Richard III as loyal and thoughtful. The author has interesting theories regarding the deaths of Henry VI, George, Duke of Clarence and Edward V and his brother, Richard, A really entertaining and educational read.

I really enjoyed reading this. It was exactly what I needed it to be. Characterisation was great, pacing was good. There were some beautiful sentences too.

Having read "Cecily", and raved about it to everyone I know, I was very keen to read this second book about Cecily Neville, now that her son Edward I is king. A fantastic read, and a wonderful dive into the life of this powerful matriarch of the House of York. Annie Garthwaite is a worthy successor to Philippa Gregory in terms of shining a light on strong women from history. Thanks to NetGalley and the publisher for an ARC in return for an honest review of the book.