Maid Of All Works (Downley Court Book 2)

---

Following this meeting, we revised the draft paper again, recirculated it to the group for comments and incorporated further feedback. The result is the following set of interpretations of key phrases in the legislation. See box 1 for additional information about the process and this report. We have identified six phrases in the current law that urgently need clarification. They are presented in their statutory context in box 2. In this section of the paper, we explain how these phrases are generating interpretive uncertainties.

We then provide a proposed interpretation for each phrase, followed by a justification for each proposed interpretation. Although this is the fourth criterion listed in the legislation, we consider it first because it has generated the most interpretive difficulty. Second, it could refer to timing: Third, it could refer to cause: Or it could refer to some combination of the above. Uncertainty as to the interpretation of this phrase has consequences: Does the concept of reasonable foreseeability require death to be anticipated within six months?

A patient with a degenerative neurological condition such as ALS and a prognosis of four years could be said to meet the eligibility criteria on some of these interpretations, but not on others. The same could be said of a patient with cancer and a prognosis of nine months.

There can be agreement on the prognosis and disagreement about whether the criterion is met, depending upon the specific length of time chosen as the boundary within which natural death must be probable. For example, an elderly patient may not have any single fatal condition but may have instead a constellation of chronic conditions and symptoms and a poor score on a frailty index Rockwood et al.

Temporal proximity — the nearness of natural death — can be sufficient for concluding that natural death is reasonably foreseeable. However, temporal proximity is not necessary for reasonable foreseeability. Indeed, it is not necessary for the medical or nurse practitioner to have predicted or to be able to predict the length of time the patient has remaining.

Similarly, a predictable cause of natural death can also be a sufficient condition for concluding that natural death is reasonably foreseeable, but it is also not necessary for reaching this conclusion. Natural death need not be imminent and…what is a reasonably foreseeable death is a person-specific medical question to be made without necessarily making, but not necessarily precluding, a prognosis of the remaining lifespan.

He said it was not necessary that a patient have a terminal disease or condition. The Crown has chosen not to appeal the AB decision. In addition, AB is a decision from a trial judge in Ontario and so is not a binding legal authority. Speeches made in the House and Senate about Bill C, as well as testimony before House and Senate committees and background and other explanatory materials produced by the government, can be reviewed to understand the policy intent.

No specific prognosis is necessary and death need not be imminent nor expected within a prescribed number of months.

Unfortunately, the government has provided no supporting arguments for this position. The legislative text is critical here. To characterize this required nonspecific length of time, some suggest the phrase used by the government: The government made it clear that a diagnosis of a fatal condition was not a necessary condition for reasonable foreseeability. Support for this conclusion can be found in government statements about the legislation. In other words, the patient would need to experience a change in the state of their medical condition so that it has become fairly clear that they are on an irreversible path toward death, even if there is no clear or specific prognosis.

As some medical conditions may cause individuals to irreversibly decline and suffer for a long period of time before dying, the proposed eligibility criteria would not impose any specific requirements in terms of prognosis or proximity to death…The medical condition that is causing the intolerable suffering would not need to be the cause of the reasonably foreseeable death.

In other words, eligibility would not be limited to those who are dying from a fatal disease.

It should be noted that people with a mental or physical disability would not be excluded from the regime, but would only be able to access medical assistance in dying if they met all of the eligibility criteria. This conclusion also fits well with the kinds of circumstances that it seems the government intended to satisfy the criterion of reasonable foreseeability.

The Minister of Health at the time, Jane Philpott, stated that individuals would meet the criterion from the moment of a diagnosis of ALS being made. Stephen Hawking, the world-famous physicist, was diagnosed with ALS at 21 and is still alive at In addition, Minister Wilson-Raybould stated: Kay Carter had no diagnosis of a fatal condition.

Spinal stenosis her condition itself does not significantly shorten life expectancy. She was, however, 89 years old. The proposed interpretation is consistent with these ministerial statements about who would be eligible. The proposed interpretation also fits well with the conditions that, we can infer, the government intended to result in ineligibility under the reasonably foreseeable criterion. Comments by legislators suggest that the legislative intent was to exclude persons with a physical disability or mental illness who are otherwise in good health. What these individuals have in common is that it is not possible to identify in any way their trajectory toward a natural death: Additional examples may be helpful to illustrate the implications of the proposed interpretation in practice.

These are conditions that meet the criterion of reasonable foreseeability, making patients eligible for MAiD if all other eligibility criteria are also met:. On the other hand, some persons who would not meet the reasonably foreseeable criterion and so are ineligible for MAiD would be a year-old with quadriplegia following a car accident, a year-old with chronic pain and a year-old with multiple sclerosis — if they are otherwise healthy.

In these cases, the period of time before death is too remote and the cause of death is not predictable. It is important to note that, even if a person may satisfy the reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion, that person may not satisfy the other eligibility criteria e. If so, as long as there is any chance of a cure from any available treatment, the patient would not be considered incurable. Does it mean likely incurable by any means? Under this interpretation, if an available treatment offers any reasonable chance of cure, the patient would not be deemed incurable.

Or does it mean incurable by any means acceptable to the person? If so, if the only possible chance of cure comes from an available treatment that is unacceptable to the person perhaps because the side effects of the treatment are, to the patient, worse than death , the patient would be deemed incurable. A patient with oral cancer who has already tried two different chemotherapeutic agents and is offered a third, with a 30 percent chance of cure, may decide that they cannot endure another round of chemotherapy.

The essential issue here is whether an illness, disease or disability is to be considered incurable when treatments are available that the medical or nurse practitioner thinks are potentially curative, but that are not acceptable to the patient. They conclude that acceptability to the patient is not a condition of curability. We reject this argument for the following reasons. First, the proposed interpretation is consistent with the well-established law on consent to medical treatment in the area of criminal assault as well as the tort of battery.

With very few exceptions such as patients with certain communicable diseases , the law allows capable patients to refuse medical treatments for any reason whatsoever, regardless of the potentially fatal consequences of the refusal and regardless of whether others consider their refusal reasonable. As noted by the Senior Counsel of the Department of Justice:. I would conclude that the criminal law itself prohibits administering a medical substance to a person against their wishes.

That is the crime of assault. The criminal law has to be interpreted consistently, as a whole.

2. Developing our proposed interpretations

That is one section of the Criminal Code compelling what is criminally prohibited by virtue of another section of the Criminal Code. In other words, a person has the right to refuse any kind of treatment. A person can have an illness for which there is a potentially effective treatment, but if the person refuses to be treated, even to save their life, the illness will be, for all intents and purposes, incurable.

Second, in Carter v. Before concluding this justification of our proposed interpretation, three additional points must be made. First, our proposed interpretation contemplates that both the person seeking MAiD and the medical or nurse practitioners assessing eligibility for MAiD have a role to play with respect to whether this eligibility criterion is met. The medical or nurse practitioner determines whether the patient has a condition and whether it can be cured by means acceptable to the person; the person requesting MAiD determines whether any potential treatments are acceptable.

Second, the established norms of informed consent apply in the context of MAiD; the provider must ensure that the patient has been informed of the treatment options and is capable of understanding and appreciating the consequences of refusing potentially effective treatment. Specifically, does it mean suffering that literally cannot be tolerated, or does it mean an intensity of suffering that is at the far end of a spectrum running from mild to extreme? Second, questions have been raised about the timing of the assessment of the intolerable suffering criterion relative to the assessment of the other elements of eligibility to make a request for MAiD and the actual making of a request for MAiD.

The legislation provides the following sequence of steps:. The legislation also requires that, in order to receive MAiD, two independent medical or nurse practitioners must be of the opinion that the patient requesting MAiD meets all of the eligibility criteria sections This timing increases the risk of unexpected loss of capacity to consent, which would mean ineligibility for MAiD.

Further, it means that patients have to endure 10 additional days of suffering that is, by definition, intolerable, because the waiting period cannot begin until that level of suffering has been reached. Some patients would like to know — before their condition becomes grievous and irremediable especially with the intolerable suffering component — that they will have access to MAiD. Knowing this, they say, would bring them comfort through the months and weeks leading up to their death.

Some patients would like to make the request for MAiD before intolerable suffering begins, so that they would not have to endure 10 days of it. Still others have suggested that the request for MAiD cannot be made until the process of determining whether a patient meets all of the eligibility criteria to be able to receive MAiD has been completed by the two independent medical or nurse practitioners. Given the diverse and, we think in some cases, incorrect interpretations that are sometimes being relied upon, the legal requirements about timing need clarification.

Second, the request for MAiD cannot be made until a medical or nurse practitioner has concluded that the patient has a grievous and irremediable medical condition and informed the patient of that conclusion. The clock on the day waiting period cannot be started until after the request for MAiD has been made. The first relates to impossibility: We can reasonably adopt the second meaning, for two reasons. This suggests that the law regards intolerable suffering as something that it is possible to bear.

If the meaning intended by the law was suffering that is literally impossible to bear, there would be no patients for MAiD as they would necessarily request deep and continuous sedation and in this condition they would become ineligible for MAiD. Or, as we argue below, the day waiting period would be waived because medically suitable deep and continuous sedation would lead to loss of capacity before the waiting period ends.

The implication of the different definitions is significant. If it means extreme, then it is logically coherent for a patient to say that. In regard to the timing of the MAiD process, the legislation is clear and explicit that: It is reasonable to infer from the text that the clock on the day waiting period can start before the assessments of eligibility to receive MAiD have been completed, indeed even before all of the eligibility criteria to receive MAiD have been met.

Nothing in the legislation prevents medical or nurse practitioners from having robust preliminary conversations with patients about MAiD and reassuring them through clear explanations of how the eligibility criteria to request MAiD relate to their prognosis. There is also nothing in the legislation to prevent assessments of eligibility criteria to request MAiD to be conducted in stages. One advantage of assessing the various elements of eligibility over time as they become manifest is that a patient may initiate and go through part of the assessment process before their suffering becomes intolerable.

This means that, once the patient is in a state of intolerable suffering, the final confirmation of eligibility to request MAiD may be made more expeditiously, since the other criteria will already have been investigated. In addition, the patient may be comforted by the knowledge that a significant part of the process of assessing eligibility to request MAiD has been completed.

One disadvantage is that the stepwise determination of eligibility will put additional burdens on the practitioner assessing eligibility to request MAiD, as it is possible that multiple interactions with the patient will be required. In addition, it also relies upon the availability of the practitioner to make the later assessment of intolerable suffering. If so, a patient who has a sudden, precipitous loss of capability would be ineligible for MAiD.

If meeting this criterion requires only a substantial loss of capability, no matter the speed of the decline, a patient who experiences a precipitous loss would still be eligible. Fourth, is the decline in capability assessed according to a subjective or an objective standard — that is, by the patient or by the practitioner?

Some examples may illustrate the impacts of these uncertainties. One patient has had a stroke that left him with severe prosopagnosia, which means that he can no longer recognize faces, including his own. Another patient has had a stroke also and is now unable to speak the language she had spoken for the past 30 years, but she can speak the language she spoke for the first 10 years of her life. A third patient had a severe brain-stem stroke two years ago.

His cognitive function is not compromised and he retains the ability to communicate; however, he has permanent widespread paralysis. His decline was sudden rather than gradual, and it was substantial. Three years pass and, while his decline was severe, it has stabilized, so now he is in a state of having experienced a severe decline but not declining further. Is this a judgment to be made by the medical or nurse practitioner or by the patient? And what is the standard for assessing decline: Some raise the question of whether persons in an advanced state of decline in cognitive function would meet the eligibility requirement that an individual must retain decision-making capacity.

However, this view reflects a misunderstanding of the nature of at least some types of cognitive dysfunction. For example, a wide range of visual perceptual disorders are common in patients who have had strokes. A patient with such a disorder is in an advanced state of decline in cognitive function but could still have decision-making capacity for MAiD. This being said, many other types of decline in cognitive function could negatively affect decision-making capacity.

A person in this state would be ineligible for MAiD as a result of inability to give valid informed consent, but not because their advanced state of irreversible decline is of cognitive, not physical, capability. This will be true of some patients but not all. These already established approaches would also be applied in the context of MAiD.

It can be a position on a slope lower than a previous position or an ongoing descent down a slope. Fourth, whether there has been a decline in capability is a clinical question that should be measured objectively. It is therefore best answered by the medical or nurse practitioner. What would the standard be? Would it be best-case capability or median or mean?

Would it be relative to the entire world? Would it be relative to groups the individual belongs to e. What if the person, before the onset of their incurable condition, was below average on a variety of capabilities? Again, if the government had wanted this criterion to be judged against capabilities held by individuals other than the patient, it should have explicitly given direction as to what standard, other than the patient, was to be used. Therefore, patients with severe prosopagnosia following a stroke, for example, might be assessed to be in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability because of their severe loss of cognitive function.

Louise de Keroualle, a real lady in every sense, captures the heart and soul of this magnificent King. Different from most mistresses of the time, Louise would only know Charles, and be loyal to him for life. The French Mistress is a definite page turner. The story, written in the first person, gives a brilliant account of the life in the times of both the French and English Courts. The story completely drew me in.

List of fictional books

I loved reading about the particularities in the lives of two of my very favourite royals. Susan Holloway Scott details the scenes, filling them with emotional dialog and in-depth character perceptions that clearly bring the period to life. The book is beautifully written to vividly depict this most grandiose time in all of its spendour, without being devoid of its tragically sad and scheming deceptions. I defintely want to read more books by Susan Holloway Scott Aug 15, Rio Lynne rated it liked it Shelves: This is the third novel in this series covering King Charles II's mistresses.

Louise witnessed the horrific things Henriette's husband did to her, but this is where the author started getting a little to repetitious to me. By the time Henriette gets to make the trip to England to see her brother, I was starting to skim a bit. This meeting is of course where Charles II meets Louise. I won't say much in case you are not familiar with this part of history, but this is where the story just never picked up any speed.

Maybe it was because I knew the ending, but the author never grabbed my attention. I was hoping for some insight on Louise "was she a spy or not? On a positive note, I did like how she portrayed Charles in this one. Since I am not a fan of his and instead of writing about him like he was Mr. Romantic, she showed him for what he was. View all 6 comments. Nov 25, Anastacia rated it really liked it Shelves: I picked up this book to read following the only other Scott book I've ever read, Royal Harlot, and in preparation for the Royal Mistress challenge that I am doing next year library copy.

I greatly enjoyed the first book, finding it well written, paced well, though I couldn't attest to how historically accurate it was, not knowing much about the time period. The book starts with Louise's life long before she ever meets the King of England; in fact, she doesn't officially become his mistress until page I think for this reason, the book really drags. Louise does seem to really love the King, so she does have that going for her. I couldn't get into Louise's character at all, even at the end of the book I just couldn't like her.

Oct 10, Theresa rated it it was amazing. This is a story about Louise de Keroualle. The author did a fine job with the detail of Louise's life. Lousie was one of many mistresses but she was well loved and cared for until the Kings death. She was witty and smart, and had made sure to pro This is a story about Louise de Keroualle. She was witty and smart, and had made sure to provide for her own future by asking for favors and titles for herself and her son by the king Oct 07, Christine Cazeneuve rated it it was amazing.

Loved this book and found a new author that I adore. In fact, ordered most all of her books yesterday! This book tells the story of Louise de Keroualle. They form a great sisterhood and she gets to accompany Madame to England to visit her brother with a political agenda as well to accom Loved this book and found a new author that I adore.

They form a great sisterhood and she gets to accompany Madame to England to visit her brother with a political agenda as well to accomplish. During that visit she falls for King Charles II who was a known womanizer.

See a Problem?

Soon after their return to France, Madame dies and Louise is left to fend for herself, but King Louis has a plan to send Louise back to England as a gift to Charles but with plans to have Louise spy on England by having her "get close to the King". So the novel takes us from her beginning to her end. What I liked about this book is that all the other books I have read, Louise comes across as someone not to like. Lady Castlemaine, who is one of Charles's long time mistresses no one can ever like but for obvious reasons but Louise just gets under your skin.

In this book, you come to understand her more and she becomes much more likeable. I found it kept my interest through every page and I look forward to reading Ms. Oct 10, Laurie rated it really liked it Shelves: Mar 13, Elis Madison rated it liked it Shelves: If Minette looks unhappy, she had reason. Minette was probably in love with Louis. Her husband was famously in love with the Chevalier de Lorriane. And in case you're not up on your French chivalry, a Chevalier in those days would be male. When Minette died, possibly poisoned by the Chevalier or Monsieur—more likely just driven to a stress-death by their abuse—King Louis decided to play the pimp.

So Louise, now set adrift by her mistress's death, is pretty much ordered by her king to go join Charles II's Merry Harem. Louise famously held out on Charles for a good while. Being French and Catholic, the contemporary depictions of her weren't flattering; a whore who isn't whoring isn't necessarily given a lot of grace.

As for her role as a spy it seems nobody was fooled, Charles least of all. More likely Louise played go-between, serving both Charles and Louis. Given that she came out of the whole arrangement richer than the Duchess of Castlemaine and Nelly Gwynn and with a French duchy as well as an English one, the accounts that described her as grasping might not have been too off-base.

But Louise is one of only three let's just say the pool was much deeper women Charles, on his deathbed, asked his brother James to look after the queen being one, and Nelly being the third. To be honest I don't know enough about Louise to even start to judge whether this book is accurate as to her motives.

She was at the least an ambassador of Louis XIV, and at worst an out-and-out spy. She retired to France her English heritance wasn't honored by William of Orange , and she never married after Charles died. That could tell us something, and the author chooses to assume it does. I honestly could see this as a far less romantic and far more commercial relationship, but it could well be my own bias, since Nelly Gwynn is my favorite. I'll give this one 3. Oct 17, Robyn Markow rated it liked it.

She from a titled but penniless family, conventionally beautiful,sweet,loved them gifts of jewels and titles and other than the fact she was spying for France,a bit dull. I really like how she writes how people actually probably talked back then and Charles the 2nd was a real charming guy. No, I'm not being sarcastic Yes,he played around,but they all did. However he wasn't a hypocrite and treated all his mistresses Hey,that could be the title of an HBO Mini-series very well and provided for every one of his offspring by them,Louise's included they had a son together.

He even treated his poor barren queen with kindness and didn't divorce her. In short,he was one very likable rogue. Now to the story: Louise,who finds both the offer and Charles equally attractive;heads for England and soon becomes his "favorite" Mistress. The very informative afterward explains why he possibly found her so appealing beyond her beauty and kept her long after he had tired of his other mistresses. It also gives you a sad footnote about Louise's life Post-Charles,who returns to her native France,shunned by most everyone she was reviled in England as well, being both French AND Catholic living in near isolation until passing away at the advanced age of Jun 09, Lauren rated it it was ok Shelves: This is the 3rd Susan Holloway Scott book I've read and I've enjoyed her writing style in all three, as well as her very good attention to historical detail.

I really liked Royal Harlot even though Lady Castlemaine was not a very nice person. She didn't have that many redeeming qualities to her beyond her beauty. And then came The French Mistress. As usual, Scott's This is the 3rd Susan Holloway Scott book I've read and I've enjoyed her writing style in all three, as well as her very good attention to historical detail.

As usual, Scott's writing style is wonderful. I felt that the historical detail was accurate, the descriptions of the various Courts and locales throughout the book were done well.

1. Introduction

I enjoyed the first part of the book, which takes place with Louise as the maid of Charles' sister, Henriette Madame. After reading Scott's other novels about Restoration England, it was interesting to read about the differences between Charles and Louis. And then Louise went to England and that's when the book became a huge drag. The only words I can use to describe Louise herself are not very nice. She was self-righteous, smug, full of herself and basically thought she was God's gift to King Charles. She also cried at the drop of a hat which was extremely obnoxious.

I disliked Louise immensely. I suppose that part of why this book only merited 2 stars. I give it 1 star for the writing I really like Scott's writing style and 1 star for the beginning of the book before Louise met Charles because it really just went downhill from there. There is mention of the high treason acts- even Louise herself was convicted of high treason and then all the sudden poof! History was not kind to Louise, and rightfully so. I think Scott did a good job of making the readers like Charles' first mistress, Lady Castlemaine, and I hoped she might do the same for Louise.

However, I'm thinking that just is not possible, Louise just pretty much sucked. Dec 27, Amanda rated it really liked it. Though I haven't read a great deal about Scott online, I happened across a collection of her novels while I was shopping at Half Price Books 20 percent off everything sale back in December. As a fan of historicals, the gorgeous covers immediately caught my attention and, in the spirit of the sale and my gift card I grab all of the Scott novels on the shelf, eager to start my journey through history with Scott.

Louise quickly befriends Henrietta, but finds that her mistress is stuck in an abusive, loveless marriage. When Henrietta visits her brother Charles in England, he takes a liking to Louise. Once this news reaches King Louis of France, he decides to send Louise to the English court to seduce Charles and gain his support. But Louise finds that she has feelings for Charles, though she is only one is a mass of mistresses in Charles' life. I was pleasantly surprised by The French Mistress.

It started out slow, but quickly grew compelling and through unexpected twists and turns, drew me into Louise's story of intrigue, politics and romance. Scott, while not the best writer in the genre, is a talented one who does a decent job of weaving tales and drawing fascinating characters that are unexpected and a joy to read. May 06, Mandy Moody rated it it was ok Shelves: I'm not sure if it was Scott's writing or the personality of the main character that made this one such a dissapointment.

Her self importance, her greed, her whining and her constant tears made me want to shake her and shout "shut up, you cry baby! At one point King Charles even tells Louise when I'm not sure if it was Scott's writing or the personality of the main character that made this one such a dissapointment. At one point King Charles even tells Louise when she apologizes for crying so often that he wouldn't have her any other way.

The authors note at the end was interesting to read. Scott talks about how through history Louise has been maligned so much that the character flaws attributed to her are now presented as fact by many. She also mentions that Louise was the most hated woman of her time.

Perhaps there was a reason for this? She was a spy for France! She considered herself far better than the other mistresses the king had. She constantly begged for favors that Charles and England could not afford to give her - and received them anyway. No wonder she was hated at the time. No wonder she has a bad reputation. I've enjoyed all of Scotts previous novels FAR more than this one. Apr 24, Gaile rated it did not like it Shelves: After Royal Harlot by the same author. This was a snoozer.

Unlike the bawdy, entertaining and smart Barbara Villiers, the heroine of this one, a French woman sent by the Sun King to beguile Charles II was too pallid and likable to be very interesting. Perhaps some may like this book as Louise has a conscience and thinks of herself as basically a good woman.

Of course she becomes hated in England for being French and a Roman Catholic. The after note has her returning to France after Charles died bu After Royal Harlot by the same author. The after note has her returning to France after Charles died but even there she was not very welcome which made me wonder if she really was as likable as she comes across in the book. I had a hard time keeping my mind on this and found it thoroughly boring which is not to say the author is not a good writer. It made me reflect on why it is that novels about unlikable bad heroines sell better than pious heroines.

Readers recognize that everyone has flaws and no one is perfect nor can we help being who we are. Thus we find ourselves rooting for flawed heroines while tossing aside novels with too perfect heroines. I find myself justifying the position of Louise de Keroualle as she navigates the duties to family, Mistress, King, Love and Country. She was both infinitely clever and ultimately stupid. She allowed herself to settle for the tenuous position of a mistress and could never claim anything but a passing place in the life of the man she loved and the countries she was dedicated to.

She was discounted by many when she was really a kind and devoted woman. She garnered many of the triumphs she sought I find myself justifying the position of Louise de Keroualle as she navigates the duties to family, Mistress, King, Love and Country. She garnered many of the triumphs she sought but to what end. She ended her days alone in solitude lacking true friendship. Considered a whore by many.

Loise was actually a very good woman excepting her role as matresse en titre to the king of england she did much good and little wrong in her life. So many things would have been different had she bestowed her love on a more worthy person than that of the English king. For though he was a King he was not a good man in my estimation. He was above all unfaithful not only to the many women in his life but to his faith, his people and his word. Jul 13, Susan rated it liked it. I found this book a little disappointing.

I thought the scenes involving Louise at the French court were well done, and it was fun to read about Charles II's mistresses from Louise's jealous point of view. I also like the fact that Scott made Louise sympathetic while not attempting to gloss over her faults, especially her love of riches. Once Louise gave into Charles' advances, though, the book seemed to lag. I found the episode involving the "Popish Plot," which should have been highly dramatic, I found this book a little disappointing.

Isabella: The Warrior Queen

I found the episode involving the "Popish Plot," which should have been highly dramatic, to be anticlimatic: Then the book suddenly jumps ahead several years, and we never learn the fate of Danby or the resolution of the charges against Louise. It's as if the author simply started to lose interest, or was running up against a maximum word count.

I'd been rather enjoying the book up to that point, but I felt frustrated when I closed it. Jun 04, Joan rated it liked it. Mistresses of Kings were common in the 's and even the Queen had to accept this reality, including the many children of those relationships. The first half of the book takes place in France and the second half in England. If you enjoy historical fiction from this time period, perhaps you'll like this one as much as I did.

• A New Beginning: REFLECTIONS of a Cancer Survivor
• BIBLE SPELLS: Obtain Your Every Desire By Activating The Secret Meaning of Hundreds of Biblical Verses
• Evil Little Johnny
• Mohawks, Volume 2 of 3 A Novel
• The Little Blue Book: The Essential Guide to Thinking and Talking Democratic
• Yotsuba&!, Vol. 6