Customer Reviews

The Serpent and the Moon: Two Rivals for the Love of a Renaissance King

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(6)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

Having had a long interest in the life of Catherine de Medici, I was looking forward to a new perspective in this book.
I was appalled--it is chock full of historical detail that make it a very entertaining read. But that entertainment is like reading Cosmopolitan magazine: Princess Michael of Kent has done a commendable job of her research and detail, but the blatant bias in favor of Diane de Poitiers, and the contempt for Catherine de Medici make the book, to put it plainly, rather creepy. And as objective history, it is mud.

Princess Michael makes no secret of her bias, as she refers to Diane in the introduction as her 'heroine.' Everything Diane does is applauded, and held up as graceful, ladylike, classy, mature, selfless, motherly, etc--the adjectives go on and on, becoming increasingly less plausible. Catherine is referred to in such catty terms that it sounds like the book was written by a nasty high-school girl. Catherine is ridiculed for her physical lack of charms, but also for being two-faced, a liar, duplicitous, etc. But when Diane does the same things, she is excused as being 'a woman of her time.'

Princess Michael doesn't trouble herself with historical fact: Diane de Poitiers was a major figure in French Renaissance history, but her avariciousness, greed and manipulation of Henri II are glossed over in this book. Catherine de Medici ruled France as regent for 3 of her sons, and managed to survive and secure the throne in a dangerous and ruthless age by being a highly skillful monarch. She was no more or less ruthless than any other successful ruler of that age, but Princess Michael portrays her as alternately sneaky and petty. She goes into great detail over Catherine's supposed 'vengeance' on Diane after the death of Henri II, but in fact, Catherine was remarkably generous, allowing Diane to retire to her estate at Anet undisturbed when she could easily have hounded her unmercifully.

Read this once for the juicy and entertaining historical details of French Renaissance court life, but don't think for a moment that this is a book of history.

I picked up this book because the author's noble title interested me. Normally I would stay away from a history book not written by an accredited historian, but the fact that she is royalty swayed that a bit as it gave hope that perhaps her insight into a world that only a few belong would be valuable.

At times this was true, perhaps, and there was some insight. But for the most part it was common knowledge that she reiterated, not really shedding any new light at all. Additionally, as other reviewers had stated, it seems that she really does not like Medici. Strange to take such a strong point of view when writing about history. History should be neutral, not judgemental. A point in her favor is that there probably was hate in Medici, but would this be any different than any other wife of the nobility who was affronted by a concubine and her husbund? No, there wouldn't be, so why put so much emphasis on Catherine?

As well, she focused way too much on the fashion of the time and what each woman was wearing. Certainly this should be included, perhaps as a side note, but not in every single chapter, sometimes going on for pages. Not to mention the fact that she repeated her description of the fashion and fabrics worn over and over again. This should be a history of the relationship of Henri II, Catherine and Diane (as the underlying stated premise of the book , not a rehashing of what they wore on a daily basis).

All in all, if you have free time and can't find a better history book to read, then give it a go. Otherwise, I wouldn't recommend this book.

This book is a royal dud. Unbearably tedious accumulation of detail and a vicious treatment of Catherine de Medici mark this as an unworthy book of history. It's a surprising disappointment in that Princess Michael of Kent has generally seemed one of the more intellectually solid members of the British royal family. The pages are laden with imperial minutiae to the point of distraction, serving only to interrupt the telling of the beguiling tale of Henri II and the contest between his wife and mistress. When the author gets distracted you can bet so does the reader, and it happens over and over again. The author's writing style has no simplicity about it when simplicity is the very tool needed to bring sympathy, and with it a genuine understanding of the history it seeks to reveal. Catherine de Medici has rarely been treated so forlornly, yet the fascinated affection lavished on Diane de Poitiers in the end makes a shallow mess of her story. The book desperately needs an unflinching editor, and the author needs a new direction and maybe a change of heart. This is more fairytale land than it is a presentable history.

I found this history of Henri II, Catherine de' Medici and Diane de Poitiers interesting for about the first third of the book. After that I found Princess Michael of Kent a hateful author. If she wanted to write a more flattering view of the King's Concubine that's fine but there was no reason whatsoever to be so hateful about Catherine De' Medici over and over she says Catherine could "Hate and Wait". She reduces the queen to a fat ineffectual brood mare and raises what is essentially the King's courtesan into a woman of dignity, class, and peity. It makes me wonder if this book is really about an historic french king or if it is about the current crown prince of England and his mistress.

Princess Michael of Kent takes a very romantic view of Diane De Poiters. Poor Catherine De Medici is in love with her husband, but is villified for being unattractive and infertile. Of course, even after giving birth to 10 children, she is still way down on the list of her husband's preferences. Diane, 19 years the senior of the King, takes full advantage of his adolescent favor and obtains perferments for her children and great riches for herself. I couldn't help feeling sorry for Catherine. The only reason that Diane didn't get rid of Catherine ( in her 10 years of infertility) was because Diane was afraid that a younger wife might be more attractive to the King and eclipse her. I came away not admiring Diane one bit.

Every now and then, I get to find out something new in history, and a story that had not made sense before falls into place. Such was the case when I read this biography about one of the most unusual ménage a trois in history.

This biography by the wife of the British Prince Michael of Kent focuses mostly on the passion between one couple of this three-way relationship. Set in 16th century France, it's a story that can be taken several different ways -- as a scandal, a story of a great love, a scheming older woman and a much younger man, or that of a spurned wife.

The story opens with a marriage, that of two fourteen year olds, Henri of France, the second son of King Francois I, and Catherine di Medici, the 'niece' of the Pope, and potential heiress of several wealthy Italian duchies. He was a sullen, quiet boy, still traumatized by several years imprisonment in Spain as a hostage for his father. Catherine, having been deprived of her parents in infancy, had been passed around an assortment of relatives and convents, unsure of where she would be from day to day. It was a magnificent wedding, and both young people performed their parts, including Henri consummating the marriage.

The surprise came after the wedding -- when Henri promptly returned to the company of his Lady. She was Diane de Portiers, a highly placed lady of his father's court. She was also eighteen years older than Henri, very beautiful, educated and possessed of a dignified courtesy. In short, she was everything that Catherine was not. She also had the confidence of both of Henri's parents, and ever since her husband's death, she had worn nothing but black and white, and young Henri had adopted those colours as his own, playing the part of a chivalrous young knight to his lady.

It was Catherine who suffered for ten years, enduring rejection by her husband and having to treat his mistress with grace and courtesy. But on the inside, it appeared that she was seething. She adopted a secret motto for herself --- "Hate and Wait" -- and had a peephole placed in the floor of her bedchamber so that she could spy on the amourous couplings of her husband and her lover. It must have been humiliating to know that Diane and Henri eventually gave into King Francois' demands that Henri get his wife with child, and Diane sending her husband upstairs to get his wife, suggesting that he make love to her like a greyhound, and then as soon as the deed was done, return to Diane's arms. Evidently the suggestion worked -- Catherine would have nine children by Henri. Despite this horrible behavior, Catherine would love her husband, still as besotted as when she was a new bride.

When Henri finally became King, Diane remained at his side, recieving properties and becoming his closest confidant and advisor. Henri in turn, championed her, placing their intertwined intials throughout the royal palaces, and having her continually at his side. Diane played her part, creating herself as the goddess of the hunt and the moon, and clearly delighting in the role of uncrowned queen of France. But there was one problem in the relationship -- she was much older than her lover, and what would happen when the years finally caught up with her?

The biggest problem that I had with this was that the author is more than smitten with her leading lady. Continually, she refers to how beautiful, how talented, how good, how noble, how beloved Diane de Poitiers was by everyone. This adulation leaves little room for faults, and the story is certainly one sided -- very little is mentioned if she had any enemies, or if she did anything at all that was wrong. After a while, it does get a bit nauseating to read about. No one likes a perfect person.

Unfortunately, the luckless Catherine de Medici is reduced to the stereotypes of a jealous, bitter wife in this. Little is mentioned of her life after Henri II's death, her elegance and polish, and her love of art and fine living. Instead, Princess Michael doesn't miss an opportunity to refer to Catherine as a dumpy, fat, wife, and how ugly and unattractive she is. Very little is mentioned about Catherine's talents in the arts, or that she was extremely graceful with a sharp wit.

And then, what about the third person in this marriage? Henri II comes across as one of those men who is certainly attractive and charming, but also extremely selfish. His callous treatment of Catherine is certainly dispicable, ignoring her while he went chasing after a woman who was old enough to be his mother.


As far as historical writing goes, this is a very average book. Princess Michael's style is pendantic and repetitious, going over the same track again and again. By the end of the book, I was bored, and very glad to see it end. While there are black and white illustrations throughout the text, and an insert of colour photos, along with the usual notes and bibliography, there's not much that can really save this work.

Instead, I would suggest Leonie Frieda's excellent biography of Catherine di Medici which is much more even handed and sympathetic to read.

Over all, despite some good information and insights, this one gets an average, three star rating for the banality and dullness in this work. Somewhat recommended.

While I agree with other reviewers that HRH Princess Michael of Kent presents a story largely biased in favor of Diane de Poitiers (and against Catherine de Medici), I didn't mind it anywhere near enough to interfere with my fascination reading this book (which I read in two days). For one thing, HRH states her bias upfront, so it's not like she's presenting herself as an objective historian, here--you know what you're getting. For another... I don't like Cathrine de Medici. Don't bet me wrong--I agree that she could have been presented far more sympathetically at points, especially as a 14-year-old forced into an arranged marriage with a boy and a kingdom who would always resent her. I got tired of "hate and wait" too, which is why I gave this 4 stars instead of 5. But it's not like Catherine's jealousies were anything more than personal--history shows us how very close she was to her father in law's, Francois I's, mistress, which kind of undercuts a higher objection to the idea of kings having mistresses in the first place. I read TS&TM for the story of Diane and Henri, and I do believe they had one of history's great love stories. I really appreciated it being told from the viewpoint of a woman (who yes, gets the idea that a 37-year-old widow could be attracted to an athletic and devoted 18-year-old prince for more reasons than his money and power). As much as this book tells their story, it very much succeeds.

The first half of The Serpent and the Moon mainly deals with Francois I's reign as king and has little to do with the love triangle. Frankly, the whole book itself hasn't much to do with the love triangle or "one of the great love stories of all time," but more to do with the political intrigue of Henri I and his father's reigns. Oh, and lest I forget, Henri, Diane, and both of their symbols, monograms, etc. I honestly don't know what the whole fascination of that was all about, but it showed up everywhere.

On page 187 the princess tells us that it is a man's way of thinking that Diane wouldn't have become Henri's mistress if he hadn't become dauphin. I disagree, it is a realist's view, and frankly, I think it's fully possible that was how it started. Yes, maybe she was flattered by his attention too, but to consider having him as a lover in light of how much she was in his life growing up, it's a bit creepy. Oedipus comes to mind. I believe he was infatuated with her from a young age and it most likely progressed into love, for both of them. I envision her grabbing the chance at being the mistress of a king and being older, she knew how to mould and persuade him. Whether or not it was a true love story, I really don't know; I'm not sure anyone does and I don't care all that much.

As many other reviewers have stated, there is an obvious bias. The readers are warned in the introduction, but even if you know that, there's still the possibility that the work as a whole might be neutral. Unfortunately, that's not the case. Maybe if it had only been a slight bias, I wouldn't have cared so much, but when an author heaps praise on one person and how they accomplish everything, and then turn around and bash someone else for the exact same thing. Well, that's just hypocrisy.

From the book, the author would have you believe that Diane de Poitiers got to where she was merely by being a good, honest, gracious, and pious woman and Catherine de' Medici did it by being a cold, heartless, evil, spiteful person. I'm sorry but you cannot have climbed to the heights Diane did, especially in those times, without being conniving in one way or the other. I'm sure she did the same things Catherine did, so quit holding Diane up on a pedestal; she's really not a goddess, just a woman. Diane is a white light, Catherine is black as death and there isn't any grey between them for most of the book. By the end of the book I really took the "history" lightly, mainly that of these two women, more than anything else; it was just an unfair assessment. And with the author's snarky and catty remarks directed towards Catherine, saying she has a "fat little heart," well, that was just uncalled for. Then at the end, her words were so disgusting about Catherine's behavior towards Diane, saying how petty she was and she did things purely due to "feminine spite". Catherine could have done much worse to her but she didn't! Of course, Ms. Perfect D. was always so respectful and exemplary of Catherine. Give me a break. Maybe some of the things said in the book were true about both women, but then again, maybe not. Most is lost to history.

If Princess Michael of Kent's plan was for me to sympathize and idolize Diane de Poitiers, as she does, it backfired. Now I don't ever care to ever hear about her again, and I love history of all kinds. On the other hand, I have already ordered two books about Catherine de' Medici from the library. Most likely the opposite of what she wanted. I honestly don't blame Catherine if she was bitter, who wouldn't be in that situation? Even if it was a different time, circumstance, and an arranged marriage? I refuse to believe Diane was this perfect being, a goddess, virtuous as can be, a victim - nobody is all these things and I don't know why the author cannot see any imperfections and insists on romanticizing her.

Even though I hated how biased this book was, I still appreciate the amount of research this must have taken, it was fairly well-written in form, and there was loads of information. I'd only recommend this to Catherine haters, loathers, or serious dislikers. With the princess's flair for the dramatic and speculation on feelings and actions, she might want to focus on writing works of fiction instead. I have no desire to read anything by this author again.

I am not going to be original with the issues I have with this "objective" view on the Diane and Catherine, there are some positive points of the book I want to highlight. First of all it has abundant and relevant illustrations as well as an excellent bibliography. There is a wealth of intriguing details, customs, and scandals, many of which probably deserve a separate look into. I thought that history regarding the reign of Francois I was needed and interesting, until it stole the half of the book.
My biggest complaint is not unique-- nothing that Diane did was wrong nothing that Catherine did was right. The author simply did not treat those two characters with fairness and honesty. This preferential treatment is not only limited to Diane; everything that Francois I did was great, when he made a mistake it was his mistress who is blamed.
It was fascinating to read that property confiscation from mistress of late Francois I was rightful and just in view of the fact that Diane was the one who benefited the most; while Catherine's forceful exchange of Chenonceau for another chateau was interpreted as a lowly and hateful act. When Anne d'Etampes was promoting her family and her favorites and meddling in politics she was driven by avarice and stupidity; when Diane was doing exactly the same thing she was following her strict moral code and wisdom.
Diane was the ward for the royal children and did an exceptional job, according to the Princess of Kent. She was the one who found them tutors and doctors, selected what they will learn and where they will stay, with very little say from the queen; but when they grew up to be "the worst kings of France" it was apparently Catherine's and Henri's fault for spoiling them too much. Every other sentence mentioned how beautiful, gracious and sincere Diane was while Catherine was ugly, fat and duplicitous. By the end of the book I really hated Diane and was cheering for Catherine.
This book was the most unabashedly biased book I have ever read. The author painted the portrait of those two fascinatingly complicated characters in black and white while in reality they were all different shades in between.

Although primarily focused on Diane de Poitier during her passionately entertwined life with Henri at court, the other major players are equally weighted in significant detail in this sentimental and lovingly protrayed account. In particular, Catherine de Medici takes on an almost human - if not humane - form unlike perhaps any prior historical account to include her life. From the opening pomp and ceremony to the tragically crowded death chamber of the king from which she was barred, Diane's tenous but enduring power is described and justified by well presented historical facts. Worthwhile, also, are the insights into the motivations of other members of the court. Horrific details are not left out, but the beauty associated with the Renaissance era permeate the book from cover to cover. The artwork alone is worth the purchase of the book.