Yes, we know it's historical fiction but historical fiction is supposed to have some basis in actual historical fact besides just the names and a basic outline of the situation. This is true for this novel as well as her new one, The Other Boleyn Girl. In most historical fiction novels, even regular fiction novels, when the authors play fast and loose with some of the facts they tell you at the beginning or the end that they have modified facts for the stories sake and then tell you which ones. Then we can still enjoy the fiction but the facts are preserved. The problem when an author doesn't feel that they are bound by this professional coutesy is that readers who are not well versed in the history, read this book and think that what they are reading is true. HISTORICAL fiction does imply that a lot of what you are reading is fact and people cannot be blamed for assuming that some of what they are reading is true.