Book Log: 25 Royal Babies That Changed the World
Jan. 7th, 2026 02:59 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
scaramoucheI got this book ages ago but shoved it to the back of the drawer because I'd read another book by the author, Amy Licence, that was filled with silly but annoying mistakes. I'd put the author on my No Go list, but I already had this book in the pile, is the problem.
When I finally picked it up to read, I was already not inclined to be generous. Second impressions are even worse because the title is already obnoxious -- the book isn't about royal babies around the world, but royal babies in the UK, from Empress Matilda in the post-Conquest, down to the George, the eldest of the latest batch. Then the spread of births is uneven, too, with Licence skipping whole generations but then specifiying three of Henry VIII's kids: the short-lived Henry, Elizabeth, and Edward. Because Tudor supremacy, I guess. This isn't bad in itself, but just added to my annoyance of a bias.
It's a quick read, though! There is a throughline there of how royal births and birthing procedures evolved over the centuries, with Licence mentioning new expertise and publications that changed the way births were handled. There's the tug-of-water between male surgeons and female midwives, which eventually led to male midwives but also female midwives becoming more outspoken and publishing their own works. Then the horror of the Victorian era where all the nitty gritty of giving birth becomes taboo(ish), and the modern era with its overexposure to a ravenous public. But this throughline isn't consistent, as there are some chapters where Licence skips the birth details entirely to focus on the political situation of the baby's parents and the significance said baby would have or could have had (like if Henry VIII's first son with Catherine had lived). It's an okay book but I was not inclined to be nice about it.
When I finally picked it up to read, I was already not inclined to be generous. Second impressions are even worse because the title is already obnoxious -- the book isn't about royal babies around the world, but royal babies in the UK, from Empress Matilda in the post-Conquest, down to the George, the eldest of the latest batch. Then the spread of births is uneven, too, with Licence skipping whole generations but then specifiying three of Henry VIII's kids: the short-lived Henry, Elizabeth, and Edward. Because Tudor supremacy, I guess. This isn't bad in itself, but just added to my annoyance of a bias.
It's a quick read, though! There is a throughline there of how royal births and birthing procedures evolved over the centuries, with Licence mentioning new expertise and publications that changed the way births were handled. There's the tug-of-water between male surgeons and female midwives, which eventually led to male midwives but also female midwives becoming more outspoken and publishing their own works. Then the horror of the Victorian era where all the nitty gritty of giving birth becomes taboo(ish), and the modern era with its overexposure to a ravenous public. But this throughline isn't consistent, as there are some chapters where Licence skips the birth details entirely to focus on the political situation of the baby's parents and the significance said baby would have or could have had (like if Henry VIII's first son with Catherine had lived). It's an okay book but I was not inclined to be nice about it.
![[staff profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user_staff.png){kind=small}
![[site community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/comm_staff.png){kind=small}
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}