Divorced, Beheaded, Survived

This book is a disappointment and fails its own premise. I found it to be historically inaccurate in multiple sections and most egregiously, misogynistic and defensive of grooming.
Kathryn Howard and Elizabeth I are painted as being seductresses and sexually liberated at the age of 13. They were victims. Elizabeth herself resorted to attempting to get away from Thomas Seymour, her molester and despite the fact Kathryn Howard was of higher rank than her abuser, she was a 13 year old student of Henry Mannox, a man a decade her senior. But Lindsay paints them both as sexually liberated, empowered young women. She also refuses to note that there were two Thomas Culpeppers at this time, and we are not certain whether the Thomas Culpepper Katheryn Howard would have an affair with is the same as the one who was a rapist. She also has Kathryn Howard's birth year wrong. It is believed that she was born in 1523 or 1524, not 1520 as Lindsay claims. (She also has Margaret Beaufort's age at the time of marriage wrong as well). The idea that this affair was based in emotions other than lust goes unmentioned though both Kathryn herself and Thomas Culpepper maintained (even after their sentence) that they had yet to have sex. Lindsay has a narrative here, to prove Henry VIII had double standards and was needlessly cruel. A narrative that is easily proven by actual facts without denying the trauma Kathryn experienced in her early life.
Katherine Parr's first marriage was not at the age of 14 to Lord Edward Burgh, a widower in his 60s but to his grandson, Sir Edward Brugh who was 21 to her 17/18. Too young, yes but not as egregious as Lindsay paints it. It wasn't until the end of this chapter that I got angry. The rest of the chapter is well-written and accurate aside from the mention of her first marriage. It is when Lindsay presents Thomas Seymour (who she calls “Tom” for some reason, and yet can't call Catherine of Aragon Catalina or Anne of Cleeves, Anna like most do when writing about all six wives) as having a consensual affair with the 13-year-old Elizabeth that I grew furious. Elizabeth was noted to be resistant to Thomas' attempts at grooming her- rising early so he wouldn't enter her room and grope her in her nightgown as he liked to do. And yet, in Lindsay's eyes, this is a consensual affair between a middle-aged man and a 13-year-old child.
She also paints Mary I as weak and useless. You are not weak if you survive Henry VIII as a husband or a parent. Mary's desire to have the things that were denied to her by her father (a husband, a family) is painted as weak. She is considered weak for being distressed by the news her betrothed had a mistress. But yes, Lindsay, let's consider her foolish and silly for not wanting to go through the same pain her mother and Henry's other wives had to, for not wanting to endure the humiliation they faced, for daring to be upset that her utmost wish seemed to still be out of reach. There is a needless comparison of Elizabeth and Mary, along the same lines of the comparison made between Margaret Beaufort and Elizabeth Woodville.
Karen Lindsay's feminism is only for exceptional woman, not those who long for traditionally feminine things and roles, who did not have access to the educations of a Spanish princess, a persuasive diplomat's daughter or any woman not infamous in some manner.