Just another GR refugee. Other than that, I had a stroke in 2004, and read almost anything I can get my hands on, though I have a particular weakness for history, mystery, and historical fiction.
Well, I started (just barely) volume 1 of the Hundred Years War books a group of us are going to take a stab at - "Trial by Battle." The first chapter was quite good, looking at what Paris, and all of France, was like in 1328, when the last of the Capet kings died. (Paris, like France, was at least double the size of London/England. (Paris: 100,000 to London's 40,000; England had -rough figures - 4 million, France 16 million.) Paris, and France, were richer, and more prosperous, as well as being much larger in population.
And I have discovered that the local university library has volume 2 - "Trial by Fire." So I may be in it for that volume, as well. (It looks like no library in this area has volumes 3 or 4.)
I found it interesting that Jonathan Sumption started his book with an apology for writing a narrative history. None needed! Humans like narrative (we will supply it, or attempt to, if there is a lack of it), and it's been the main stream of the writing of history from the beginning of the discipline. It's only in the last 50 years or so that narrative history has been seen as old-fashioned and not serious enough - by professional historians. (I suspect because non-narrative histories are less likely for "ordinary" people to want to read. And then you can complain about "popularizers" as a bonus. To which I say: "bah, humbug.")