The Star of Lancaster; Queen Isabella; Keys to Lolita

I know it looks like I'm reading a lot, but two of those books I was almost done with and just finished yesterday, and the third book was only 120 pages.
"The Star of Lancaster" by Jean Plaidy was her eleventh Plantagenet book (I'm almost done with the series! Yeah). I'm getting really bored with these books, actually, but I'm persevering. I mean, they really are all starting to sound the same. This one was about Henry IV, who took the crown from Richard II, and his son, Henry V, who was an excellent soldier who almost conquered France for England, but died before he could get his hands on it, leaving behind a nine month old Henry VI as his heir. We're getting closer to Henry VIII...
"Queen Isabella" by Alison Weir was a look at that notorious Queen of Edward II who had her husband set aside so her son could take over. After reading Plaidy's fictional account, I wanted to see how much truth was in it. Normally Weir's histories are very engaging, but this one bored me to tears. I guess there's not a lot of reliable evidence and firsthand accounts of that time period (700 years ago), so she rounded out the story with household accounts, etc. I don't care how much Isabella paid for cloth goods in 1317 or whatever. Really, I don't. While it was meticulously researched, it didn't have any story behind it. It was just lists of dry, dull facts. Weir did try to put forth the theory that Edward II didn't die but escaped from the castle where he was being held prisoner and lived out the rest of his years as a monk. There is of course no real evidence to back this theory up, but it's still an interesting thought. History is full of unsolvable mysteries.
"Keys to Lolita" by Carl Proffer was really great, and one I wouldn't mind owning. He gently analyzed "Lolita" by Nabokov, and made me fall in love with the book all over again (I think I judged it too harshly the last time I reread it...). He discussed the beautiful language and the literary allusions. I read a lot of books like these, mostly on Faulkner's works, and sometimes I get so sick of analyzing a book to death. Can't a story just be a story? But this one enhanced "Lolita" rather than tearing it apart. This is how literary analysis should be done. He also mentions that a lot of readers who read carefully think that Lolita will be killed by Humbert, and points to all the evidence in the book that Nabokov planted to lead readers on a false trail. I didn't even see it the first time I read it, but I understand why one might think that. I wonder if Proffer wrote anything about Faulkner? I'll have to do some research.