#WyrdAndWonder 2020 | Should we use fantasy to retell history? (a.k.a. in which Jess is a history grump)

Decorative phoenix © Tanantachai Sirival

Wyrd & Wonder is a month-long celebration of the fantastic hosted by imyril @ There’s Always Room for One More, Lisa @ Dear Geek Place and Jorie @ Jorie Loves a Story. Get involved here!

Strap in. This is going to be a long one.

That’s what she said.

We’ve been retelling stories since we first had stories – there are so many different versions of the same fairy tale, and how many of us have heard someone tell a story and thought ‘that’s not the version I was told’? – so retellings themselves are not the least bit new. Over the past decade, as YA has become more established in the publishing world, retellings have become a whole sub-genre, from The Lunar Chronicles to A Blade So Black.

There’s nothing we won’t retell: fairy tales, myths, classics and, more recently, history.

Again, retelling history is nothing new. We could argue the historical biographies in every generation are a retelling of history because each generation has new, updated research and, of course, biases from their own experience as human beings.

We could also argue that alternate history novels are essentially retellings of history, but they’re not quite the same thing. The Calculating Stars takes place in a version of the 1950s where a meteorite hits Earth and forces humankind to colonise outer space, Temeraire adds dragons to the Napoleonic Wars, and Dread Nation takes place in a version of 19th century America in which the undead rise on the battlefields of the Civil War.


These aren’t quite retellings because they’re not taking established figures from history and asking ‘what if?’, they’re changing the construct of the world in that time period as we know it.

Recently, however, I’ve seen a few YA books that are literally retellings of history. They take real historical figures and twist the story a little by adding a dash of the speculative, and I’m here today to ask: should they?

Now, some disclaimers before I carry on:

  1. I’m a big history nerd so I can 100% understand that this kind of thing won’t bother other readers as much as it might bother me.
  2. This isn’t a post to tell you what you should be reading or to shame you if you have read and enjoyed history retellings – if you love these kinds of books, that’s great, we should always celebrate reading. This is just my opinion, so if you love these books I’m not calling you out for it.
  3. Ultimately I’d never tell an author what they should write. If the story they desperately want to tell is a history retelling then they obviously don’t need my permission to go for it.

One book in particular that I can’t bring myself to read, despite my love for the Tudor era, is My Lady Jane by Cynthia Hand, Brodi Ashton and Jodi Meadows.


My Lady Jane got a lot of buzz when it was released and, I have to admit, initially I was intrigued. I’ve loved history my whole life, but my first and truest history love is for the Tudor era, and Lady Jane Grey has played a big part in that.

When I was around eight-years-old my mum worked in a pub. One day there was a wedding reception and she had to work late, so she couldn’t come and pick me up from school until around an hour or so after the school day had finished. So, after everyone had gone home, my teacher at the time (whose name I’ve completely forgotten, which makes me sad!) took me through to the computer room, sat me down and taught me about Lady Jane Grey. I was already a history lover, but from that moment on the Tudor era captivated me like none other.

I haven’t read any historical fiction (or any non fiction, yet!) about Lady Jane Grey, so to see a YA novel about her being released and getting a lot of attention and positive reviews had me really excited.

And then I read the blurb.

So, for those of you who might not know, Lady Jane Grey lived in England during the Tudor era, which took place from the beginning of the reign of Henry VII in 1485 to the end of Elizabeth I’s reign in 1603.

Henry VII’s heir was the infamous Henry VIII, who made his way through six wives during his lifetime, and Lady Jane Grey was the granddaughter of Henry VIII’s sister, Mary Brandon.

Henry VIII’s children: Edward VI, Mary I and Elizabeth I

After Henry VIII came Edward VI, who was only nine-years-old when he ascended to the throne and died when he was only 15. Having no heirs of his own, the crown was set to pass to his older half sister, Mary Tudor, but here there was a problem. England experienced a tumultuous change in religion during this era after Henry VIII broke away from the Catholic Church and created the Church of England. Edward, as the king, was head of the Church of England and believed in it, but Mary was a staunch Catholic and had been her whole life.

Edward’s councillors didn’t want a Catholic on the throne. Edward’s other sister, the future Elizabeth I, was also a Protestant like he was, but as Edward needed to claim Mary wasn’t legitimate to avoid making her the queen, he also needed to claim his other half-sister, Elizabeth, was illegitimate. Why? Henry VIII’s marriages to Mary and Elizabeth’s mothers (Katharine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn respectively) had both been declared null and void during Henry’s life.

Katharine of Aragon, mother of Mary I, and Anne Boleyn, mother of Elizabeth I

Therefore, the next in line for the throne just happened to be Lady Jane Grey.

The Streatham portrait, believed to be a copy of a contemporaneous portrait of Lady Jane Grey

Jane is remembered today as the Nine Days’ Queen. Her reign was incredibly short-lived, she was forced into a marriage she didn’t want and fought against her controlling father-in-law when she refused to make her husband King of England (and therefore higher in authority than her). Mary soon reclaimed the throne with the support of the English people who didn’t think it right that Mary had been removed from the succession. When it became clear that Protestants would continue to rebel in the name of Lady Jane Grey and Jane refused to convert to Catholicism, she was put to death.

She was beheaded at the Tower of London on 12 February 1554, when she was around 16-years-old.

Forgive me if a story about Jane and her husband, who turns into some kind of werehorse, doesn’t appeal.

I’m not even making that up. In this novel, her husband (who was a bellend in real life) literally turns into a horse. Because… I don’t know, reasons?

I realise – and I really do realise, I promise, I know I sound like a grump – that this is supposed to be funny and it’s not supposed to be taken seriously, but a 16-year-old was forced onto the throne of England and then had her head cut off for it. That’s heartbreaking, it’s horrific, and that’s also a far more compelling story than whatever this is.

Catherine Parr, the first woman to publish an English book in England under her own name

Jane was a fiercely intelligent young woman, she was raised by Catherine Parr for a time, the first woman to publish an English book in England under her own name, alongside the future Elizabeth I. She was the prime example of women who loved to learn and longed to be educated alongside the men of the era, and yet here we have a rom-com in which her husband turns into a horse.

There are ways to rewrite Jane’s story, and give her a happier ending, without making it a comedy. I think the fact that it’s a comedy is what bothers me because it’s not funny! These people may have lived 500 years ago, but that doesn’t mean they no longer deserve our respect.

After the Tudor era came the Stuart era. James VI of Scotland became James I of England after the death of Elizabeth I; he was the only son of Mary, Queen of Scots, whom Elizabeth was forced to have executed in 1587, but he was also descended from Henry VII through Henry VIII’s other sister, Margaret Tudor, who married into the Scottish royal family.

Mary, Queen of Scots and her son, James VI of Scotland and I of England


Nadine Brandes’ Fawkes features, unsurprisingly, the story of Guy Fawkes. Guy Fawkes was one of the conspirators of the Gunpowder Plot, in which a group of Catholics attempted to blow up the House of Lords, with the king and his councillors inside, on 5 November 1605.

Why? Well, if Edward VI’s councillors hated Catholics, they didn’t hate them anywhere near as much as James I did. This is the same monarch who was terrified of witches and sparked the spread of witch trials throughout the UK during this era of history. He was a very superstitious, not very pleasant chap. If you were discovered to be a Catholic in this era the consequences were severe, with hanging, drawing and quartering being the preferred method of execution. Not a nice way to go.

It shows just how unhappy the Catholics were under James’s reign that he ascended to the throne of England in 1603, and by 1605 someone was already trying to blow him up.

Guy Fawkes is the one who’s been remembered because he’s the one who was found with the gunpowder, he was the one who was set to light the fuse, but one of the other conspirators had a relative who worked in the House of Lords and, stupidly, sent him an anonymous letter that essentially warned him not to go to work. The king was informed and Fawkes was found.

He underwent horrendous torture in the Tower of London and initially refused to give his true name or the names of any of his co-conspirators. It wasn’t until 8 November that he began to reveal the names of his allies, and it’s very likely that he was tortured on the rack. Just look at his two signatures from the Tower below:

Though we know him now as Guy Fawkes, he was also known as Guido (pronounced Gwee-doe) Fawkes

The top signature was made soon after his torture, and is barely legible.

In Fawkes, Brandes retells the story from the POV of Guy Fawkes’ fictional son, Thomas. Considering he served as a soldier and likely had some kind of sexual experience at some point in his life (although that’s not guaranteed) Fawkes may have had illegitimate children, but there’s no record of him ever being married or having any legitimate children or any illegitimate children that he acknowledged. (This isn’t important, I just wanted to say there’s no record of a Fawkes junior anywhere.)

Now this could be an interesting angle to work with. Although we can look back now and understand the Catholics’ anger – imagine being threatened with being disembowelled while still alive just for practising the faith you believe in – Fawkes and his co-conspirators were essentially religious radicals and terrorists. What did they really hope to achieve? James already had children by this point so there were already little Protestant heirs ready to take over should their father meet an untimely end, and they certainly weren’t going to be sympathetic to the Catholic cause if the Catholics blew up the Houses of Parliament. Having a story from the point of view of the son of a terrorist is a great hook.

The only problem here (for me) is that Brandes has turned the conflict into a fantastical one. There’s colour magic (which does sound cool, to be fair) and Keepers and Igniters (I don’t know what either of those things are) and a Stone Plague. In this story, Guy Fawkes doesn’t want to assassinate the king because his treatment of Catholics is brutal, he wants to assassinate him because he’s an Igniter.


Again, I don’t know what that means and I don’t know why I should care when the original story is already so juicy. I get that religious and political upheaval isn’t everyone’s thing, and some people would much rather read about a fantastical war, but why do it with this particular period of history? Why not create a fantasy world with a plot inspired by the Gunpowder Plot? I’d be down for that.

I actually love historical fantasy, I love it when magic or mythological creatures are added to a historical setting, but I don’t like it when they’re added at the expense of something else. At no point in that blurb is the fact that Fawkes is a Catholic mentioned, and to me that completely takes for granted the suffering and persecution that that group of people suffered during this period of the UK’s history. Why remove it?

In this book’s defence, I’ve seen a few reviews claiming that the magic in this book is essentially an allegory for the Protestant Reformation and, of the two books in this post, Fawkes is the one I’m most likely to try because it does still sound like it has a lot of potential.

Now these novels could be excellent entryways into these periods of history. If you didn’t know anything about Lady Jane Grey or the Gunpowder Plot and one of these novels convinced you to go out and learn more, that’s a truly wonderful thing and it’s one of the things I love most about historical fiction in all its forms. I do also have to acknowledge that, while I’m a history lover, plenty of other people aren’t and it’s really not the end of the world if they don’t care about Lady Jane Grey as much as I do.


If an author chooses to write historical fiction, however, I do think they have a duty to do their research and to show the subjects they’re writing about respect—especially if, like Lady Jane Grey and Guy Fawkes, they met a terrible end because of the religion they practised. In a way it’s a shame that fantastical allegories are used for religion instead of the religions themselves (and I have no idea if Lady Jane Grey’s fervent Protestantism is touched upon in My Lady Jane) when, if we’re going to write historical fiction, we have to acknowledge that religion was a big part of many people’s lives.

Whatever your religious beliefs, whether you have a faith or you’re not religious at all, I think we need to see more religious characters—particularly in YA. It’s so true that reading fiction teaches us empathy, and when we currently live in a world where anti-Semitism and Islamophobia are, sadly, still present, I think it’d do many of us a lot of good to be reminded how everyone has a right to their faith, whatever it might be, as long as they cause no others harm. Historical fiction is one of the best genres authors can write in if they want to explore faith and all its strengths and foibles. When we replace faith with magic, I can’t help feeling that we’re putting a distance between ourselves and the generations of people who’ve walked the earth before us.

Are you a fan of history retellings? I’d love to hear your thoughts!

19 thoughts on “#WyrdAndWonder 2020 | Should we use fantasy to retell history? (a.k.a. in which Jess is a history grump)

  1. lydiaschoch says:

    Honestly, I feel the same way about fantasy retelling about historical events and people.

    It can be done well….but it’s a sensitive issue and has been done terribly insensitively so many times as you noted.


  2. Annemieke says:

    Completely understand where you are coming from with this. It is one thing to rewrite fairytales and classic tales like Frankenstein. But when you use actual people from our history it gets incredibly tricky. They really aren’t ours to play with. I did read Fawkes and didn’t care much for the characters and all so I still say, skip it haha. I don’t read a lot of historical fantasy retellings. I really prefer the ones set in a certain time period during certain events if I do read them. But on occasion I do want to give them a try.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. waytoofantasy says:

    Okay so….the Tudors are my jam. I LOVE that period of history. I wrote a paper of Mary Queen of Scots in college. I mean it was probably a shitty paper but hey. I also have voluntarily read nonfiction books on a lot of the Tudors. Anywho. I thought I would HATE My Lady Jane! One of my pet peeves is when someone does something with history and then ignores the history (CW’s Reign–I’m looking at you). Buuuuuuuut. I actually really loved My Lady Jane. I think it’s one of those things where if you’re able to turn off your brain and just go with it, it’s really fun. You kind of just have to ignore everything you know. It’s such a silly book that you can’t take it seriously at all. And the authors KNOW that and they’re in on the jokes. And that’s why it works for me, because it’s self aware. I totally get why it wouldn’t work for everyone, but I had a lot of fun with it.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Shannon @ It Starts at Midnight says:

    I am torn here! Because i DO see your point! But I also feel like… Idk, if it were me, I’d hope that someone would at least give me a better ending than I got? I actually just read My Lady Jane, and while it WAS a comedy, it wasn’t that it was taken lightly, if that makes sense? At least, in my opinion. They used some silly ways to get the points across, but it seemed like there was a deeper message behind it. But again, just my opinion!

    I haven’t read Fawkes, but I did read Romanov by the author and it was a somewhat similar premise. I will say, I have been let down by “Anastasia” type stories in the past, and this was NOT one of them. Like, the author was incredibly true to the story, and it is absolutely as horrible as it was. And like you said about Fawkes, the magic wasn’t “easy”, it was more allegorical I thought.

    In general, I am wary of retellings, so I do get your points, no question! But I think they CAN be done right- it just may be a little harder to do! Love this post, SO thought provoking!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Jess @ Jessticulates says:

      I think one of the best things about the book blogging community is how we can have discussions like this without biting each other’s heads off – as so often happens on Twitter – and I’d never think less of someone who enjoys history retellings because there’s just no point. People should always be allowed to enjoy what they enjoy. At some point I am going to have to give My Lady Jane or Fawkes a try (probably Fawkes, because I think I know too much about Lady Jane Grey for it not to annoy me?) and I think it’s great that so many people have enjoyed it. I’m just a massive history nerd so, for me personally, the story of what happened is already so exciting that I don’t really see the point in adding magic. I love historical fantasy when the main characters are fictional, but when authors decide to retell a real historical figure’s life with magic I’m always like ‘why tho?’ – but that’s just me!

      I really like your point about how you’d love someone else to give you a happier ending – that’s a really interesting way to look at it! Poor Jane definitely deserved better, although I do wish people would stop writing about how the relationship between her and her husband was actually a romance because he really was a bit of a pillock and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. They do it in that ’80s film about her starring a super young Helena Bonham Carter, too.

      It’s good to hear that Nadine Brandes seems to have really thought about how to include magic in these stories, so she’s an author I will have to try one of these days. 🙂

      Thanks for stopping by and sharing your thoughts, Shannon! 😀


  5. amithi says:

    I prefer my historical fiction to be historical and my fantasy to be urban. I don’t mind retellings (not the first thing I’d pick up from my TBR, but something that is sometimes on it nevertheless, especially if it involves Shakespeare’s work) and probably wouldn’t mind some “inspired by” in a different setting. I also love a good biography, so I can’t really imagine picking up any of these books.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Jenna @ Falling Letters says:

    Hm, very interesting! I don’t know much about historical fantasy titles like the ones you’ve described. For example, I didn’t know My Lady Jane has fantasy elements. Just yesterday I wrote a post listing some of my fantasy faves and I included a subcategory ‘historical fantasy’. I meant that the historical setting was key to the plot. The stories I listed didn’t rewrite/inject fantasy into real world characters or events. I can understand now, after reading this post, how it becomes more complicated when an author begins muddying historical events in their fantasy fiction. I do feel like your question “Why not create a fantasy world with a plot inspired by the Gunpowder Plot?” is right on point.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Jess @ Jessticulates says:

      Ooh yeah I genuinely love historical fantasy! I’m just not so keen when authors retell the lives of real historical figures with fantasy—particularly when the fantasy is included at the expense of something else. You want to add fantasy elements to the story of Lady Jane Grey? Go for it! Just maybe don’t turn her story into a rom-com in the process? 😅 Thanks for stopping by!

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Davida Chazan says:

    I don’t like fantasy in general, and I’m also a huge historical fiction fan. So the idea of adding fantasy elements to the lives of real historical people really turns me off BIG TIME – like totally NOT for me! I don’t like alternative history either, for that matter. (For example: No, Anne Frank didn’t survive the Holocaust and writing a story where she does is, to me, horrifyingly disrespectful to her memory.)

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Jess @ Jessticulates says:

      Good God, that’s something that exists?! Yeah, I think authors need to be careful when they’re writing about real people. I don’t mind alternate history or historical fantasy novels that follow fictional characters at all, but when an author decides to write about a real historical figure (whoever they are!) I’d much rather they follow what actually happened to them.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Davida Chazan says:

        Oh yes… that book actually does exist – I think its called Annalise! I was appalled when I read about it. Now, they don’t have to be 100% accurate about everything, but at least try to stick with the BIG facts.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s