Rating: 
Summary: Whimsical mystery for Elizabethan fans
Review: A good little book, especially for younger readers interested in this period of history. Fanciful setting, entertaining characters and a fun spin on history.
Rating: 
Summary: A Good Start
Review: Contrary to medieval_student's comment on the book, however correct the history lesson was, this book was true to MOST of historical fact. More and more people should look into the life of Queen Elizabeth I and her predecessors, and I think this book and the series would do well at whetting the appetites of beginners. If people are given too much academia and not enough plot the story line becomes lost. Great job as always Ms. Harper.
Rating:
Summary: Nancy Drew goes Elizabethean!
Review: Fanciful tale of a young Elizabeth Tudor and her mischievous adventures as a period sleuth-stress (is there such a word!?). Simple plot and colorful details make this an engaging mystery for fans of historical fiction.
Rating:
Summary: Elizabeth Tudor, Private Investigator
Review: Harper takes the Princess Elizabeth out of the sidelines and presents her as the protagonist of this mystery. Elizabeth discovers a plot to poison her and all her Boylen relatives and attempts to find the person behind it.On one hand, it was a highly improbable premise, thinking that Elizabeth Tudor would be able to slip out from under the eyes of the "guardians" appointed by Queen Mary. But, on the other hand, history has shown that Elizabeth was not a woman to be stopped by mere conventions and potential danger. As we all know, "well behaved women rarely make history" and make history she did! It was a lively mystery, well written and well described, with a solid plot. I felt a real affinity for this version of Elizabeth and for her loyal band of friends. It was not as entertaining as the Marston mystery recently read, but it was still a good read and I'm sure I'll read more of Harper's mysteries.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting, but not a great mystery
Review: I love books about Elizabeth I, King Henry and the whole Tudor period. I thought the premise of this book was interesting, and a different twist on both the mystery genre, and Elizabeth. For the most part the book was interesting, filled with bits and pieces of historical information. Where the story fell flat for me was the mystery. I found it boring. The protagonist wasn't ayone we get to know during the course of the book, and I like mysteries where there are some surprises and interesting twists. The villain was evil enough, but it was more like, oh so that's the murderer. No slap to the head saying Oh wow, that's the murderer, why didn't I see that coming!! And then you start to piece the clues together. I suppose that this is a cozy mystery, I like a little more suspense. The best parts of the book were the interactions of Elizabeth and her rather interesting mix of "friends". I did enjoy the end, when Elizabeth learns she is the Queen, though, it was a nice touch.
Rating: 
Summary: Sometimes truthful premises make good fiction
Review: If the story of the Tudors were written as fiction we probably wouldn't believe it - but would have a good time with the story. Karen Harper does a great job of taking this most improbable piece of history and winding a nifty mystery fiction into the life of young Elizabeth. The strongest part of the book are the characters. Harper had plenty of material for Elizabeth and makes her come alive. Bess is both sympathetic and, at times, annoyingly regal. Her nemisis, known as "she" for much of the book, makes Cruela de Ville look like a PTA president. She may be a bit overdrawn but is lots of fun (in an evil sort of way). The supporting cast of Bess' Privy Council work well - with Harper regularly casting doubts on whether one or more are spies for Mary. The pacing moves well and kept me turning pages (well, turning tapes as I listened to the unabridge audio version). Bottom-line: a fun historical mystery series that I'm eager to read more of soon.
Rating: 
Summary: NOT Historical!
Review: My period is largely the Fourteenth Century, but. . . my mother was an avid amateur Tudor scholar, so I grew up well acquainted with Sixteenth Century England. Furthermore, the Butlers of Ormond (why add an "e", Harper?) are one of my primary subspecialties. I could give you details of the careers of the first two Earls of Ormond and have visited all the castles and other sites in Munster associated with them. This book falls flat since its main premise is bewildering. Here's the real story. Anne Boleyn was half-Butler (if Harper ever tells us this, I missed it). She was a granddaughter of the last Earl of Ormond of the original line, who died in 1515 without male heirs. Both Piers Butler, a distant part-Irish cousin, and Thomas Boleyn, Anne's father, who had married the late Earl's co-heiress, made claims for the earldom. These came to naught because viciously anti-feminist law which had arisen during the Renaissance had wiped out the ancient Anglo-Norman partible inheritance by daughters. By law, Henry VIII had no choice but to dissolve the earldom for want of heirs. In 1528 Henry created Piers Butler as Earl of Ossory, and a year later awarded a NEW Earldom of Ormond (in England as well as Ireland) to Anne's brother Thomas. One could imagine the outrage of Piers Butler and his family over this action. . . but even before Anne's downfall in 1536, Thomas surrendered the IRISH portion of the earldom to Piers Butler. This grant was confirmed a few months after the execution of Anne and her brother--and years before the date of Harper's story! On Piers' death about a year later, his son James became Earl, fully restored under the original grant made by Edward III to the first James Butler in 1328. Harper made no effort to bring in these fascinating details, which, at best, could have greatly enriched her story--at worst, would have ruined it. Instead, she makes far too much of the broken betrothal between Anne and Piers' Butler's son. No wonder she made her murderess insane! Otherwise there could have been scant motive for her plot. Please. Aren't outrageously unhistorical movies like MARY, QUEEN OF SCOTS and (worst of all) BRAVEHEART bad enough? Are we now being offered inaccurate or incomplete history in print? PS: During her long reign Elizabeth favored the Butlers of Ireland, and flirted with handsome "Black Tom" Butler, Duke and Earl of Ormond, who gussied up one of his castles in anticipation of a visit to Ireland which the queen never made.
Rating:
Summary: Historical fiction and murder mystery don't mix here.
Review: Nice story of a murder plot woven around Elizabeth Tudor just before Mary I died and she ascended. The characters are well-drawn, the plot is sufficiently complex and puzzling, and there is a nice amount of attention paid to history and historical detail (no glaring, at least, anachronisms). One gets a good idea of the frustration Elizabeth must have lived with: Hemmed in by her guardians, unable to communicate with those she trusted to advise her, unable to know fully whom to trust, liable to be taken back to the Tower for plotting against her sister, and yet the heir presumptive and potentially most powerful woman in Europe. The plot, an attempt by a hidden woman to poison all Boleyns (did you know it was Anne herself who changed the spelling [but not the pronunciation, don't forget] from "Bullen? Nor did i), including, of course, Elizabeth. The princess and a ragtag band of follwers she gathers must search out this poisoner and stop her before she destroys them along with half of Kent. Despite the characters and the devious plot, the book does not have the ring of truth for me; i only finished it because i became interested in the mystery, not because i cared a whit about Elizabeth, though Ned and Meg are nicely drawn, sympathetic. Perhaps a danger of writing historical fiction ~ especially one so off the beaten track ~ is that your characters are already known by your readers, and the known characters may not fit your needs; i think this is what happened here: I already know (for Harper's purposes) too much about her heroine to believe all she writes. If i look at this as a mystery book it comes close to working for me; as historical fiction, sadly, no.
Rating:
Summary: Karen Harper's first historical mystery is a winner
Review: Queen Mary loathes her half-sister Princess Elizabeth, blaming the daughter for the alleged sins of the mother having replaced her own mother at Henry's side. Though Mary cannot behead the popular Princess, she can and does exile Elizabeth. Elizabeth soon realizes that someone is methodically eliminating her Bolyn relatives. As she begins to uncover a dastardly plot to commit genocide against anyone remotely related to the Bolyns, Elizabeth learns that her aunt, thought dead, is alive, but being poisoned. Worse yet for the young royal is an assailant is stalking her too. With few people she can trust with her life, Elizabeth starts tracing the threads back to their source, praying that her half-sister is not the ultimate culprit. THE POYSON GARDEN is a brilliant early Tudor historical novel that quickly captures the minds and souls of the audience. The fast-paced story line strongly depicts the intrigue and peril of being a member of the royal family. The plot includes a glimpse at historical personage and a well-developed who-done-it. What really makes this novel a classy read is the passion Karen Harper obviously has for the era which beautifully rises from the superb prose. Ms. Harper strikes a chord with fiction and non-fiction Elizabethan buffs with this winner. Harriet Klausner
Rating:
Summary: A confusing story
Review: The plot of the book was good but there were times when I was so confused about what was going on. The ending did redeem the book so I will be trying out another book in the series to see if the next story line is a little less confusing.
| 
