I really enjoyed this book. Yes, it borders on hagiography. But still, it's a great story, and very wonderfully written.

HRH Princess Michael of Kent tells us of her ancestor, Diane de Poitiers, and her relationship with King Henri II of France. Her relationship with Henri's wife, Catherine de Medici, is also explored. The writing makes it hard to put down. Princess Michael definitely has a way with words and her style draws you in completely. It's rich in detail, and it paints a vivid picture.

The thing I didn't like about the book was the way it sort of glossed over Diane's faults. It's almost as though she didn't have any. I really enjoyed reading about life in the French court, particularly the sections that had to do with King Francois I and his wife, Queen Claude.

Great reading. ( )

An interesting look at one of history's most famous royal mistresses, Diane de Poitier. ( )

I have many issues with this “objective” view on Diane and Catherine, but there are some positive points of the book I want to highlight. First of all it has abundant and relevant illustrations as well as an excellent bibliography. There is a wealth of intriguing details, customs, and scandals, many of which probably deserve a separate look into. I thought that history regarding the reign of Francois I was needed and interesting until it stole the half of the book.
My biggest complaint is not unique-- nothing that Diane did was wrong and nothing that Catherine did was right. The author simply did not treat those two characters with fairness and honesty. This preferential treatment is not only limited to Diane; everything that Francois I did was great, when he made a mistake it was his mistress who is blamed.
It was fascinating to read that property confiscation from mistress of late Francois I was rightful and just in view of the fact that Diane was the one who benefited the most; while Catherine’s forceful exchange of Chenonceau for another chateau was interpreted as a lowly and hateful act. When Anne d’Etampes was promoting her family and her favorites and meddling in politics she was driven by avarice and stupidity; when Diane was doing exactly the same thing she was following her strict moral code and wisdom.
Diane was the ward for the royal children and did an exceptional job, according to the Princess of Kent. She was the one who found them tutors and doctors, selected what they will learn and where they will stay, with very little say from the queen; but when they grew up to be “the worst kings of France” it was apparently Catherine’s and Henri’s fault for spoiling them too much. Every other sentence mentioned how beautiful, gracious and sincere Diane was while Catherine was ugly, fat and duplicitous. By the end of the book I really hated Diane and was cheering for Catherine.
In short, The serpert and the Moon was the most unabashedly biased book I have ever read. The author painted the portrait of those two fascinatingly complicated characters in black and white while in reality they were all different shades in between. ( )

this book was thinly written and very clearly biased towards the diana. doubt that i would ever read anything by kent again. ( )

I'll be honest. I wasn't sure that I was going to be impressed by a book written by "Her Highness Princess Michael of Kent." But any thought of that dropped quickly away as I started to read. This is well-written history of a turbulent time, and the author manages to bring the characters to life on the pages. I found myself caught up in the story, and wishing more historians had Her Highness's deft touch with words...