Search

Search only in certain items:

John Ashdown-Hill really has the ability to write clearly and compellingly. This latest offering takes a look at the middle of the brothers of York, George, Duke of Clarence.

Much less well known than his more famous brothers, Edward IV and Richard III, nonetheless, Clarence and his life and death were am important part of the story of this period. His supposed death by drowning in a butt of Malmsey wine is one of those well known 'facts' that might be a mythology all of its own, but Ashdown-Hill provides evidence to suggest that drowning was used as a method of execution in this period and considered kinder than hanging or beheading!

It's not a long book and a good proportion is given over to a study of the Clarence vault at Tewksbury abbey and the remains therein. If you are interested in the period, this is certainly worth a read. I look forward to the forthcoming companion volume, The Dublin King.
  
TQ
The Queen's Confidante
4
4.0 (1 Ratings)
Book Rating
The book has three mysteries at the heart - was Arthur Tudor really murdered (I confess this is a new theory to me and not sure how credible this is), what happened to the so-called Princes in the Tower and what became of Lord Lovell after the Battle of Stoke. Personally, I think the latter is done a great disservice here, based on the historical knowns of his character. Even so, what happens and with the hero and heroine's consent is pretty horrific - yes, I know the historical basis for this, but it doesn't do much good for liking the supposed protagonists! Also the rather melodramatic language as the book nears it's conclusion - monster, beast, devil - it just goes a bit over the top.

I could explain a bit more about why I wasn't keen on the book, but it would be difficult to do without spoilers, so I suppose I will leave that there. I will just say that I find it hard to credit that when Elizabeth Woodville came out of sanctuary in 1484 she didn't know what had happened to her sons and therefore one would assume that Elizabeth of York would also have known - and she was happy enough to be honoured at her uncle's court that Yuletide. Having the Elizabeth of this book rail against Yorkists when she came from what seemed a close family does seem to me to be somewhat absurd.

There are, also, a number of errors which could and should have been picked up. Another reviewer has already mentioned the note which is shown to two other people on one page and on the following page is apparently a secret! There are also TWO erroneous mentions of Richard duke of York, when the context is reasonably clear the person actually referred to is York's son, Richard Duke of Gloucester - elementary mistake that should not have been made!

Perhaps I have read too many non-fiction books about the period and have formed my own strong opinions to enjoy this book as much as some other reviewers. If it is going to be your 'thing' I can only give you my opinion and leave it to yourselves to determine.