Search
The Usurper King (The Plantagenet Legacy #3)
Book
From Outlaw to Usurper, Henry Bolingbroke fought one rebellion after another. First, he led his...
Historical Fiction Henry IV Plantagenet
ClareR (5721 KP) rated Tapestry of Treason in Books
Aug 26, 2019
Intrigue in Henry Vs Court.
A Tapestry of Treason follows the life and intrigues of Constance of York, Lady Despenser from 1399 through to the early 1400s. And she was an absolutely fascinating woman. Hers was a totally dysfunctional family - but you do wonder how anyone could have a ‘normal’ family when mothers gave birth, handed their baby over to a wet nurse and went back to the Royal Court as soon as they were Churched. And the fathers didn’t seem to be there either. But this did make for some pretty interesting family dynamics. I’m surprised that there weren’t more illegitimate children, what with all the arranged, loveless marriages that seemed to be going on (although there were probably loads, and plenty of loving marriages too!).
Anyway, Constance was involved with her family in two plots against Henry V. York had been big supporters and cousins of Richard II, and were luckily also relatives of Henry V. So when Henry ousted Richard and imprisoned him, the Yorks were relatively safe. That was until they tried to reinstate Richard. Constance was fully a part of this plot: she’s portrayed as a strong-minded, confident woman who made her own mind up, and was loyal to her family. I do like female characters like this, and I like that Anne O’Brien didn’t make her into a caricature of a strident, bossy woman, as often happens in these cases.
I thought that the whole book was sensitively done. Henry isn’t made out to be a villain, in fact he’s always fair, and in some instances he may well have been thought of as too soft towards his York cousins (they were certainly dangerous to know).
I loved this book, actually. My mum has been pointing out Anne O’Brien books to me for ages, but I’ve avoided them because I knew I’d want to read everything once I started. Ah well, looks like I’ve started then (and always listen to your mum!).
Many thanks to The Pigeonhole for choosing yet another fabulous book, and to Anne O’Brien for reading along with the serialisation and answering questions. I had the best time!
Anyway, Constance was involved with her family in two plots against Henry V. York had been big supporters and cousins of Richard II, and were luckily also relatives of Henry V. So when Henry ousted Richard and imprisoned him, the Yorks were relatively safe. That was until they tried to reinstate Richard. Constance was fully a part of this plot: she’s portrayed as a strong-minded, confident woman who made her own mind up, and was loyal to her family. I do like female characters like this, and I like that Anne O’Brien didn’t make her into a caricature of a strident, bossy woman, as often happens in these cases.
I thought that the whole book was sensitively done. Henry isn’t made out to be a villain, in fact he’s always fair, and in some instances he may well have been thought of as too soft towards his York cousins (they were certainly dangerous to know).
I loved this book, actually. My mum has been pointing out Anne O’Brien books to me for ages, but I’ve avoided them because I knew I’d want to read everything once I started. Ah well, looks like I’ve started then (and always listen to your mum!).
Many thanks to The Pigeonhole for choosing yet another fabulous book, and to Anne O’Brien for reading along with the serialisation and answering questions. I had the best time!
IS
Introducing Shakespeare's Comedies, Histories, and Romances: A Guide for Teachers
Book
This stimulating and accessible book is intended for instructors at the junior high school, high...
When Life Strikes the President: Scandal, Death, and Illness in the White House
Jeffrey A. Engel and Thomas J. Knock
Book
What happens when life, so to speak, strikes the President of the United States? How do presidents...
CSI: Crime Scene Investigation - Season 15
6.0
Rate It
TV Season
Finlay finds her car rigged to explode ("The CSI Effect") as Sara and Greg are quarantined ("Bad...
RS
Richard Serra: Props, Films, Early Works
Book
Richard Serra ( born November 2, 1938) is an American minimalist sculptor and video artist known for...
Deborah (162 KP) rated Bosworth Field and the Wars of the Roses in Books
Dec 21, 2018
For starters, the book is entitled Bosworth Field & the Wars of the Roses. Discussion of Bosworth is pretty much restricted to one short chapter and about the first third of the book is taken up with an over-detailed account of the events leading up to the Wars of the Roses; if Rowse is concerned about 'Wars of the Roses' being a misnomer, perhaps he should look to his own title! Yes, the events from the disposition of Richard II in 1399 and the usurpation of his throne by Bolingbroke do have an impact on later events, but a third of the book? Do we really need to know the ins and outs of Sir John Oldcastle's Lollard leanings - I fail to see how this is relevant.
Rowse's chapter on Shakespeare must be at least as long, if not longer, than his chapter on Bosworth. The fact that he obviously sincerely believes that one can gain a credible understanding of history from Shakespeare cycle of plays was almost enough to make me drop the book in astonishment! How can one take him seriously?!
He is also ready to give every credit to the supposed work of More. Even here he falls down by claiming that the bodies of the 'princes in the tower' were discovered in the exact place More said! If you read this work you'll find that the opposite is true - they are in the exact place More said they were NOT! The fact that there isn't a shred of evidence that anyone killed the two princes is evidently a small matter to Rowse. He mentions the great turncoat, Sir William Stanley (at this point step-uncle to Henry Tudor) being executed s a result of the Perkin Warbeck debacle, but fails to mention that Sir William is imputed to have said that if Warbeck really was Richard of York, he would not fight against him. Of course he doesn't mention this - he has to keep reminding us that EVERYONE believed Richard III guilty! Really, a credible historian should not pick and choose their facts - something Alison Weir is also very fond of doing.
Another point is that he is quite happy to accept that Katherine of Valois really did marry Owen Tudor, but cannot countenance the much more credible suggestion that Edward IV was married to Eleanor Butler (nee Talbot), who is not even mentioned. He harps on about the morality and piety of the Lancastrians (despite the Beauforts being conceived in double adultery - further hypocrisy) but when Richard III founds a chantry or offers some concession to a religious house that Rowse concludes it much be down to his uneasy concience.
So, overall, not a book I can recommend in the least. He may try to convince us that his unbending traditionalist view is 'sensible' and 'common sense' but anyone with a little knowledge of the subject will see it as laughably absurd and highly prejudiced.
Rowse's chapter on Shakespeare must be at least as long, if not longer, than his chapter on Bosworth. The fact that he obviously sincerely believes that one can gain a credible understanding of history from Shakespeare cycle of plays was almost enough to make me drop the book in astonishment! How can one take him seriously?!
He is also ready to give every credit to the supposed work of More. Even here he falls down by claiming that the bodies of the 'princes in the tower' were discovered in the exact place More said! If you read this work you'll find that the opposite is true - they are in the exact place More said they were NOT! The fact that there isn't a shred of evidence that anyone killed the two princes is evidently a small matter to Rowse. He mentions the great turncoat, Sir William Stanley (at this point step-uncle to Henry Tudor) being executed s a result of the Perkin Warbeck debacle, but fails to mention that Sir William is imputed to have said that if Warbeck really was Richard of York, he would not fight against him. Of course he doesn't mention this - he has to keep reminding us that EVERYONE believed Richard III guilty! Really, a credible historian should not pick and choose their facts - something Alison Weir is also very fond of doing.
Another point is that he is quite happy to accept that Katherine of Valois really did marry Owen Tudor, but cannot countenance the much more credible suggestion that Edward IV was married to Eleanor Butler (nee Talbot), who is not even mentioned. He harps on about the morality and piety of the Lancastrians (despite the Beauforts being conceived in double adultery - further hypocrisy) but when Richard III founds a chantry or offers some concession to a religious house that Rowse concludes it much be down to his uneasy concience.
So, overall, not a book I can recommend in the least. He may try to convince us that his unbending traditionalist view is 'sensible' and 'common sense' but anyone with a little knowledge of the subject will see it as laughably absurd and highly prejudiced.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Superman (1978) in Movies
Dec 22, 2018
Gets better every time I watch!
After purchasing the new 4K edition of the original Donner classic, I had to rush right home and watch it immediately!
Having seen this film way too many times, it is impossible for me to be objective I have discovered. I can look past the film's faults and just enjoy the countless classic scenes which are still imitated in superhero films of today.
The cast is what makes the films special including Christopher Reeeve, Margot Kidder, Gene Hackman and even Marlon Brando.
It is too bad history never got to see a Superman II directed by Richard Donner. Who knows what that would've been. I'm sure it would have been amazing.
If you have ever seen the "made for TV" version, there is a LOT of additional footage there a lot of which is really good including the sequence near the end where Superman has to make his way underground to find Luthor's lair.
Reflecting on Superman now really shows me I remember it being epic as a kid and still leaves me in wonder as an adult. Very films can still do that.
And LOVE those opening credits... (bring back opening credits)
Having seen this film way too many times, it is impossible for me to be objective I have discovered. I can look past the film's faults and just enjoy the countless classic scenes which are still imitated in superhero films of today.
The cast is what makes the films special including Christopher Reeeve, Margot Kidder, Gene Hackman and even Marlon Brando.
It is too bad history never got to see a Superman II directed by Richard Donner. Who knows what that would've been. I'm sure it would have been amazing.
If you have ever seen the "made for TV" version, there is a LOT of additional footage there a lot of which is really good including the sequence near the end where Superman has to make his way underground to find Luthor's lair.
Reflecting on Superman now really shows me I remember it being epic as a kid and still leaves me in wonder as an adult. Very films can still do that.
And LOVE those opening credits... (bring back opening credits)
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Friday the 13th Part III (1982) in Movies
Mar 13, 2020 (Updated Mar 13, 2020)
Sleepaway Camp 1982: 3D Jason
So this one is my favorite out of all them, its goes 3, 1, 4, 7, than who knows after that. The kills are fantastic, this movie is the first time you see Jason wearing the Hockey Mask. Plus its in 3D, yes thats right, 3D. Plus my second charcter Shelby. Thats right, he's my second favorite charcter, besides Jason. The loveable Shelby, fell so bad for him. Most to all of the deaths realie on the 3D espect, which is cool.
The plot: The third installment in the "Friday the 13th" series picks up on the day after the carnage with homicidal maniac Jason Voorhees (Richard Brooker) stealing some clothes and killing a local store owner. Meanwhile, Chris (Dana Kimmell) and her sometimes boyfriend, Rick (Paul Kratka), are hosting a group of teenage friends at Chris' lake house. Despite a run-in with a local biker gang, they enjoy an amiable weekend together -- that is, until Jason begins knocking off kids and bikers alike.
Part 3- takes place right after part 2, it even begins showing the ending of part II, which again is good. Plus that theme song, for this movie is epic, like a cool disco theme song.
Happy Friday The 13th Everybody.
The plot: The third installment in the "Friday the 13th" series picks up on the day after the carnage with homicidal maniac Jason Voorhees (Richard Brooker) stealing some clothes and killing a local store owner. Meanwhile, Chris (Dana Kimmell) and her sometimes boyfriend, Rick (Paul Kratka), are hosting a group of teenage friends at Chris' lake house. Despite a run-in with a local biker gang, they enjoy an amiable weekend together -- that is, until Jason begins knocking off kids and bikers alike.
Part 3- takes place right after part 2, it even begins showing the ending of part II, which again is good. Plus that theme song, for this movie is epic, like a cool disco theme song.
Happy Friday The 13th Everybody.