Tracy Borman deserves a lot of credit for hauling Matilda of Flanders, wife of William the Conqueror, out of the historical dark. While Eleanor of Aquitaine gets biography after biography and historical novel after historical novel all that most of knew of Matilda was her name - and possibly her reputation for being short, and falling for William after he thrashed her with his horsewhip.
What this book achieves is to put Matilda where she deserves - as a formidable woman and Queen in her own right - a proto Eleanor, if you will. The first recognised crowned Queen of England, a frequent regent for her husband, and one of the earliest English rulers to understand the value of the well managed PR exercise, she emerges as a redoutable figure indeed. The book is also, it must be said, a terrific read - one fairly zips through it with never a dull moment, and there is hardly an infelictous phrase in the whole work.
However where Borman necessarily struggles, and where I slightly have a boggle with her approach is the paucity of contemporaneous sources. For much of the regency and political areas there is sound ground - charters survive which show what power Matilda exercised. But of course none of us really buy the book for that do we? And on the broader front, the problem is that there are ample sources from considerably AFTER Matilda's death - and very very little indeed from the actual period. So when one gets to the fun bits - the horsewhip incident for example, the bottom line is that one can have no confidence at all tht this story is true based on the contemporaneous sources - but how can one miss it out of the biography? And so on for a number of scandalous and salacious incidents... My issue with Borman's approach here is not making sufficiently clear in the text which sources she is using, and the period from which they hail. For example the story of Matilda offering herself in marriage to Britric, being spurned and taking a terrible revenge in later years is not based on any contemporaneous source and Borman tacitly (if one reads the footnotes) accepts this; but the story is used as a lynchpin of her character analysis. For another incident a "nineteenth century source" is attributed. This source is the famous Strickland - and in the footnote Borman notes that Strickland's point appears to be utterly without foundation. Yet the story remains to form part of the character materials in the main text. Similarly the falling out with William over Robert Curthose (or in modern terms Shortarse) is given without any qualifications as to reliability - yet it is almost verbatim Orderic Vitalis, who wrote considerably after Matilda's death.
All of the above paragraph may with a degree of justice be termed destructive criticism, since I don't honestly know how Borman could give us the material completely straight without qualifying any conclusions out of existence - and possibly making the book read considerably less well. However the point remains: while this is certainly a good, welcome, book which reads beautifully, readers should make sure to follow through on the footnotes and dates of sources before believing any of the more highly coloured stories!