Mimesis and Theory: Essays on Literature and Criticism, 1953-2005
Book
Mimesis and Theory brings together twenty of Rene Girard's uncollected essays on literature and...
Murder in Three Stages
Agatha Christie and Charles Osborne
Book
For the first time in one volume, the three full-length novels by Charles Osborne based on Agatha...
Henry IV: Parts 1 & 2
William Shakespeare, Keith Carabine and Cedric Watts
Book
Edited, introduced and annotated by Cedric Watts, Research Professor of English Literature,...
A Practical Guide to Working in Theatre
Book
Live theatre is an exciting, challenging profession - but how is professional theatre actually made?...
As You Like it
Leah S. Marcus and William Shakespeare
Book
Since its return to the London stage in 1740, As You Like It has delighted theatergoers, readers,...
Granville Barker on Theatre: Selected Essays of Harley Granville Barker
Book
Granville Barker on Theatre brings together some of the most important critical theatrical writings...
Loveless
Book
The fourth novel from the phenomenally talented Alice Oseman, author of Solitaire and the graphic...
MacTrump
Ian Doescher and Jacopo della Quercia
Book
For readers craving a humorous antidote to the sound and the fury of American politics, this...
The Dangerous Kingdom of Love
Book
The kingdom of love is a frightening place. A dangerous place. What kind of fool wants to live...
Historical fiction King James I England
Deborah (162 KP) rated Bosworth Field and the Wars of the Roses in Books
Dec 21, 2018
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.