J. A. Guy

The story of Thomas Becket and Henry II is one I have been interested in for years, and have read quite a bit about it. Most writers over the centuries since this happened fall into one or two camps. Either they are on Henry's side in which case they demonized Becket and imply his pre archbishop days show that he was an "actor archbishop" who couldn't have been spiritually pure. Or they are the Becket supporters who choose to ignore his pre archbishop days and make him a saint from the show more start. Both in my mind are incorrect, as Becket and Henry were both complicated people. To say because a person behaved one way that they can't change is patently wrong. And to ignore a person’s past mistakes and behavior lessens the persons spiritual change, insulted them in the process as incapable of becoming better instead of being born that way. John Guy's new biography of Becket does a fantastic job of humanizing the man, of showing him warts and all, but also showing his remarkable moral and spiritual changes. This is a fascinating read. show less

Just finished listening to the audiobook of this title, as I have not really had the time to read the paperback. Absolutely incredible account of the life and career of a remarkable man, from his birth, to his tragic murder.

This book really helps you to understand the nature of the conflict between Becket and Henry II- and the wider conflict between church and state in 12th century England. It was about far more than just criminous clerks.
Now I don't tend to go for books that base their show more treatment of historical figures and events on sensationalism, speculation, and modern ideas or fashions. I expect to see the authors using contemporary sources and material- and Mr Guy draws on these heavily.

It also convinced me that King Henry was an absolute ass in his treatment of Becket. Oh the Archbishop was not perfect. They were both stubborn and obstinate- and readers must note that I have no love for the Catholic church. Yet, the King as it is shown, was notorius for his duplicity and not keeping his word. Whereas Becket comes across as a man of conviction who was fighting to retain the independence of his institution against state control.

There were also other fascinating details. I had no idea Becket was a lifelong friend of the theologian, diplomat and philosopher John of Salisbury. The development of the concept of tyranny, and the Christian's reponse to it during Becket's day and before is also explored. These were ideas that the men behind the Magna Carta and the first Baron's Revolt against King John would pick up on. They were not invented in the 17th or 18th century.

In the final chapter, the author draws some interesting parallels between the actions of Henry II and his later descendant Henry VIII in their treatment of the church. They are actually quite remarkable. Clearly the conflict did not begin with the Tudors, and Reformation did not come out of nowhere.

Throughly recommended. Now I want to go and visit Canterbury Cathedral to see the site of the martyrdom of one of our most Charismatic and courageous Archbishops. show less

Before we begin, I have no mind for what's considered a spoiler and what isn't so, fair warning - POSSIBLE SPOILERS ahead. I also use bad language, so read at your risk.

Let me start by saying that holy shit is this book long. Remind me to never pick up a 500+ page book again, good lord. I thought I would never finish it! I also want to say that I watched the movie first and later found out that there was a book about it so I was excited because I loved the movie. History is not my strongest show more interest and most are boring to me. I have so many problems in my life, I don't care to read about the problems of my ancestors, but there are a few points in history that, if told right, really interest me. This is one of them.

John Guy did an excellent job of going through fact and fiction to provide the best possible account of Mary's life and the problems she faced. And boy is it a ride.

Even now, after finishing the book, I'm left wondering if Mary was truly a victim or not. I feel like she was a victim of greedy assholes who cared only for their own wants and using her a simple stepping stone despite being a goddamn queen. How could this shit happen to her? She's a QUEEN, is that not the highest role possible? How could they get away with so much shit against her without even facing consequences for it? I felt so annoyed and angry while I read this book and I truly hope that the rebel lords and that dickbag Cecil are burning in hell for their treachery.

I feel like I didn't fully understand this book for two reasons:
1. I don't understand how ANYONE understood what people were saying back then. When he included inserts of what they wrote, I had to read it several times before my brain could process the words as they were written.
2. So many words I've never heard of or couldn't pronounce. If I had written down each one to look up and try to learn the meaning of, I think I would have had a book of my own lol John Guy is much smarter than I am.

I really can't stand the rebel lords. They are power-hungry bastards and THEY GOT AWAY WITH IT. That's what pisses me off the most. And Cecil, I fucking HATE Cecil and to think that he had a wonderful life after Mary's execution frustrates me to no fucking end. And And HER SON. Like, what the fuck, kid? It's not her fault you never got to know her, SHE WAS FECKIN' IMPRISONED HALF HER LIFE. For him to completely denounce her, I.... I am getting way too heated over this.

Elizabeth wasn't innocent either. She refused to meet with Mary because she was a fucking coward. She IMPRISONED her because she was naive enough to think that her beloved cousin would actually help her and then she was shocked when Mary "accepted" a plot for her assassination. Anyone that trusted her and then got imprisoned for half their feckin' life for it would eventually grow desperate enough to agree to an assassination to find their freedom. And then she wanted her murdered in the middle of the night without claiming responsibility! The most cowardly queen in the entire world. What a bitch.

And who is she to dictate who Mary can and can't marry?? It isn't her life and they are BOTH queens on equal footing, she has no fucking right. Elizabeth clearly thought she was higher in status than she was. Pathetic.

Mary wasn't innocent, either, though. She trusted time and time again even after being betrayed. She made questionable choices on several occassions, as well. Still, she got royally fucked over by all fronts. From the time she was a child, she was being targeted. Cecil had a serious hard on for her, it's fucking disgusting.

It just goes to show how terrible human beings are. Even family will betray you in a second if they think they can get something out of it. Mary's biggest flaw was that she was far too trusting, too loving for this world. Everyone she knew, that she trusted, betrayed her except for her own mother and the leader of the four Maries. Just shows me that my hatred of human beings is just.

Kids growing up always want to be princesses and princes, kings and queens, but they never realize that in being so, you become a target for everyone. Humans covet power above all else and they will do anything to get it, even if they have to destroy their own family. Mary's story is proof of this.

Wherever her soul may be today, I hope she finds peace.

Another thing I'd like to mention - fuck religion. That's one of the main reasons there was so much turmoil. "My religion is the only religion." "My religion is right, fuck your religion." It's so fucking stupid. What does one person believing something have to do with you? In my opinion, Cecil was so insecure in his own religion and in himself that he was TERRIFIED that Mary's religion would overcome his own and it's stupid. Who cares what someone else believes? Live your own damn life and stop worrying so much about what other people are doing. If you truly believe that your religion is true and just, you don't give a fuck what other people are doing with their own beliefs (unless it's something like killing others who don't believe the same as you, then you should care.) To me, that just proves have pathetic Cecil was. Can you tell I hate him? If not, well... I hate him.

I don't think I've ever gotten so emotionally involved in a historic story before but jesus I hate how this played out. So frustrating!

This book is super detailed and it's obvious that the author put in a lot of effort to get all the facts and to find the proof to tie everything together. He did a great job and, while it was hard for me to read because of it's length, I'm glad I did and I think he deserves praise for this.

Also, fuck Cecil. show less

I've read a fair bit of Tudor history, and Hunting the Falcon is among the more interesting bits of Tudor history I've read in the last few years. A key part of this accomplishment was that the authors spent as much time on Anne as they did on Henry.

A few of the topics covered and claims developed included

Re: Anne
• looking at Anne's experiences in French courts thoughtfully, when in a fair bit of such writing one usually finds a bit of "you know what went on over there, nudge-nudge, show more wink-wink"
• introducing the handful of formidable women in France at that time: mothers, sisters, and wives who spent time as a regent, sat in on council meetings, or engaged in serious, detailed political conversation with a husband
• taking seriously that spending time in these women's courts would almost certainly have shaped what Anne thought it meant to be a queen
• looking at Anne's actions as queen to see which might have been inspired by her French peers
• seeing more than a desire to land Henry in her embrace of religious reformation

Re: Henry
• doing a bit of "armchair psychoanalizing" that seemed logical and fact-based, rather than pretentious or overblown
• discussing the ways he explained and affirmed his thinking to himself, essentially doubling down on what might have begun as musings until they became certainties
• considering the ways his perception of Anne's intellect and self assertion might change when she became wife and not a lover pursued

One observation I want to make, having read the book in late 2025, is that the authors' considerations of Henry were useful in thinking about my current head of state. Understanding a person doesn't necessarily make resistance against them easy, but it certainly can help.

I received a free electronic review copy of this title from the publisher via Edelweiss; the opinions are my own. show less