I'll let readers get a description of the book from the many other reviews posted here.  I give this three stars only because I think books like this should be enjoyed for what they are.  It's a colorful, fast read.  A beach book.

But as history it is about 80 percent nonsense.  Gregory credits Warnicke's The Rise and Fall of Anne Boleyn for the idea that Henry fell out of love with a thump because of the malformed fetus Anne aborted shortly before her arrest.  However, Gregory apparently did not read much else.  Among many, many facts in that book which Gregory chose to ignore was that Anne wasn't even brought back to court till early 1527, AFTER (and maybe because) Henry decided he must invalidate his marriage to Katherine.  Everybody, especially Anne's father, knew the King was on the lookout for a new wife before he got rid of the old one.  There is no doubt the King fell in love, but the depiction of Anne as a sexual schemer and Protestant revolutionary, and Henry as her victim, is simply Gregory's recycling of the slander memorialized by Nicholas Sander years after all the principals had died.  I think Anne deserves better than that.  She was a victim, just as all Henry's women were victims.  As for Mary, from whose point of view the story is told: She was never one of the Queen's maids (how could she be?  She was a married woman).  She was at court because her husband was one of the King's Gentlemen.  Her affair with the King was very brief, and she was packed off the moment it was known she had become pregnant, around May of 1525.  She and Anne were not even at court together.  So much for the value of history in "historical" fiction.  Why don't we just call it fiction and leave it at that?
I'll let readers get a description of the book from the many other reviews posted here. I give this three stars only because I think books like this should be enjoyed for what they are. It's a colorful, fast read. A beach book. But as history it is about 80 percent nonsense. Gregory credits Warnicke's The Rise and Fall of Anne Boleyn for the idea that Henry fell out of love with a thump because of the malformed fetus Anne aborted shortly before her arrest. However, Gregory apparently did not read much else. Among many, many facts in that book which Gregory chose to ignore was that Anne wasn't even brought back to court till early 1527, AFTER (and maybe because) Henry decided he must invalidate his marriage to Katherine. Everybody, especially Anne's father, knew the King was on the lookout for a new wife before he got rid of the old one. There is no doubt the King fell in love, but the depiction of Anne as a sexual schemer and Protestant revolutionary, and Henry as her victim, is simply Gregory's recycling of the slander memorialized by Nicholas Sander years after all the principals had died. I think Anne deserves better than that. She was a victim, just as all Henry's women were victims. As for Mary, from whose point of view the story is told: She was never one of the Queen's maids (how could she be? She was a married woman). She was at court because her husband was one of the King's Gentlemen. Her affair with the King was very brief, and she was packed off the moment it was known she had become pregnant, around May of 1525. She and Anne were not even at court together. So much for the value of history in "historical" fiction. Why don't we just call it fiction and leave it at that?