“The Three Crowns” covers a period of England’s history that I’m not too familiar with, so I looked forward to this one. Sadly, it’s one of those novels that’s so dry it makes you thirsty.

It uses backstory early on, which would’ve been better filtered in later through dialogue to make it more active, or cut out altogether, as it isn’t essential. The overuse of “had” (past perfect) in the opening chapter makes it a passive start:

“How she had hated the lying Berkeley! He had desired her and because she had refused his attentions, this was his revenge. So distressed had she been that her attendants had feared for her life; and in her despair she had begged the Bishop of Winchester to come to her, and before him and the Duchess of Ormonde she had taken a solemn vow swearing that Berkeley had never been her lover and that the father of her child was James, Duke of York.”

The above *reports* on what happens, rather than *dramatizing* the events. That’s the problem with using the past perfect “had” – it reports on the scene as opposed to taking the reader into the action as it unfolds. It’s also a filler word, as the narrative is in the past tense. Every “had” in the above quote could’ve been cut or replaced.

A similar thing happens around one-third of the way into the story. After following events set during the times of Charles II’s reign, with the main characters being Charles, his brother James, and James’s daughters Mary and Anne. Yet, when we reach a time when Mary is fifteen and betrothed to William of Orange, the next chapter jumps back 27 years to William’s birth.

I’m not a fan of historical fiction that doesn’t keep to a linear path. A few months to a year is fair enough, but 27 years? Other readers may well disagree with me, but I feel like this disrupts the narrative flow to a large extent.

It wouldn’t be so bad if the events following the sudden leap back were dramatic and exciting. In this case, most of what’s presented reads like a textbook. For example:

“When William was sixteen a plot was made to restore him to the Stadtholderate. William could not be blamed for taking part in it but John de Witte, seeing the direction in which public opinion was turning, decided it was wise to admit him to the Council of State.”

The author starts from William’s birth and speeds through 27 years until she’s back to where she broke off from. Apart from the passive textbook-style writing, it’s also annoying when a certain character who’s died earlier in the story is alive again. Events that have happened are also alluded to. It’s as repetitive as it is passive.

I can see no reason why the events in William’s life couldn’t have been slotted in alongside events happening at the English court. It would’ve worked much better to have kept it linear, swapping between William and the English, and finally uniting the two threads with William’s marriage to Mary.

William III, Mary II, and Anne are three of the five monarchs of England I know least about (Georges I & II being the others), plus my knowledge of James II is scanty, so I can’t state for fact that the author is wrong – as she did her research – but I find it hard to believe that those in the line of succession would go on so much about it in such a precise way. We regularly get this kind of thing:

‘“If the King has no children and the Duke no son, the Lady Mary could be Queen.”’

To me, it feels like the author is reminding the reader about the line of succession, as opposed to her writing about what really happened.

Not long after the previous quote, James tells Mary:

“‘If the King has no children and when he and I are dead, it will be your turn.’”

A little later, Charles tells James:

“‘If neither of us get a son Mary could be Queen and Anne could follow her.’”

This last quote strikes me as one of this author’s occasional traits, namely writing with the advantage of hindsight. Why, at a time when Mary and Anne are children, would Charles add the part of Anne following Mary? Why would he assume at such a time that if Mary did succeed to the throne that she’d have no heir and Anne would follow? It’s one heck of an assumption. I don’t recall Charles II being a profit. It’s also a bit too prophetic for him to suggest that James would never have a son and further imply that Mary would take the crown, which makes the part about Anne all the more ludicrous. The author knows that Anne followed Mary – Charles II did not and could not.

When it jumps back 27 years and ploughs thorough William’s youth, this future English monarch keeps predicting he’ll be king because of the three crowns prophesy that came with his birth, which he believes means he’ll one day rule England, Scotland, and Ireland. He did, of course, but the number of times the three crowns prophesy is mentioned is annoying. Again, it feels like the author is writing with hindsight, though having said that, I don’t know enough bout William III to contradict whether he really did spend his life believing this prophecy was true. Either way, it’s overused in this novel.

One instance where the author is without question writing with the benefit of hindsight is this regarding Princess Anne:

“She was looking ahead to the day when she would have the throne.”

The above quote is based on Mary not having any heir, yet at this stage Mary is only 24. Anne is just two years younger, so it’s highly unbelievable to have Anne thinking of her destiny as Queen of England. Anne couldn’t predict the future. It’s unrealistic and ridiculous to have 22-year-old Anne think this.

Like many of the historical novels I’ve read, this author puts so much effort in getting the history elements correct that essential creative writing skills and quality elements of style are neglected. Main problem being too much “telling” and not enough “showing”. Don’t tell the reader that “Anne looked astonished” or “Peterborough was aghast” – show their emotion with action, or body language, or a facial expression.

Phrases like the following quotes are blatant telling:

“It was clear from his attitude that he brought bad news”, and “it was obvious that she was a little uneasy”. Whenever an author uses “clear/clearly” or “obvious/obviously”, they’re not showing the reader a damn thing. It’s prose at its most passive.

Such as “the baby was brought to show him” shows the reader nothing. It’s a dry fact written in the passive voice.

Reported speech is another reason why this novel is so dry and passive:

“He explained to her the need for them to have sons; their son, he told her, might well be King of England”, and: “When James came to see her she told him that she wanted the child baptized as a Catholic.”

The author could’ve dramatized the above quotes by using dialogue and body language. That way, the reader would “see” what was going on, rather than being “told” about it.

The following quote is all passive prose and reported speech that could’ve been dramatized and therefore made into an engaging scene(s):

“He would ask her opinion and then superimpose his own. But he was at least taking notice of her. He showed an interest in the poultry garden she had set up and explained to her that she could have aquatic species of fowls because the canals provided the necessary water.
Mary listened eagerly; William’s anxiety decreased.”

If I want hard facts, I read non-fiction. When I read a novel, I want drama and action, not something that reads like an uninspired newspaper report.

Sometimes, when there is a decent amount of dialogue, the scene suffers from having no sense of place. After the opening of a scene quoted below, it goes into a dialogue exchange, and while we know where the prince and princess are, we don’t know where Anne Trelawny and Mrs Langford are:

“Anne Trelawny and Mrs. Langford were talking of the affair while the Prince and Princess were at the theater.”

This is also another book in which tears are described as “silent”:

“Mary saw the tears silently falling down Elizabeth’s cheeks.”

Are tears ever loud?

There’s also an overuse of “very”, which is a sure sign that the novel hasn’t been redrafted enough times.

Every word should count. A new author can be forgiven for the odd lazy word or one too many adverbs, but this prolific author had written over 40 books by the time this one came out. If I didn’t know that, I’d assume this was her debut novel.

Something about Jean Plaidy’s books keep me coming back for more. Perhaps it’s her obvious love for English and French history, which I share, that draws me back. I wish she’d focused less on turning out as greater quantity of novels as possible and concentrated more on quality writing. A novel like this one should be revised 15–20 times, yet this at best feels like a third draft. ( )

Truly loved this book. Would be surprised if I was disappointed in a Jean Plaidy book though. This is the story of Mary II and Prince William of Orange. Mary was forced to marry William when she was only 15 and William was around 28. She was not happy about that and made it known to everyone. William was a very stern puritan and intended to ensure Mary's submissiveness to him. His intent on marrying her was to be King of England, Scotland and Ireland and he was a very cold and cruel husband emotionally to her. She very rarely challenged him and I found myself very angry at her and the few times she rose to the occasion I was hopeful that she would continue this way but she let me down time and time again...sigh... This book is #7 in the Stuart Saga which I am enjoying very much. ( )

Very sad story of Mary and Anne. ( )

A gift from my Grandma, she liked it and assumed I would.