Search
Elizabethan Espionage: Plotters and Spies in the Struggle Between Catholicism and the Crown
Book
In the wake of the 1588 destruction of the Spanish Armada, English Catholics launched an ingenious...
Lyndsey Gollogly (2893 KP) rated Katherine of Aragon, the True Queen in Books
Sep 6, 2021
144 of 250
Book
Katherine of Aragon the true Queen ( Six Tudor Wives)
By Alison Weir
Once read a review will be written via Smashbomb and link posted in comments
A Spanish princess. Raised to be modest, obedient and devout. Destined to be an English Queen.
Six weeks from home across treacherous seas, everything is different: the language, the food, the weather. And for her there is no comfort in any of it. At sixteen-years-old, Catalina is alone among strangers.
She misses her mother. She mourns her lost brother.
She cannot trust even those assigned to her protection.
KATHERINE OF ARAGON. The first of Henry's Queens. Her story.
History tells us how she died. This captivating novel shows us how she lived.
It took me a bit longer than normal to finish this book I really enjoyed it but came away feel so sad for Katherine. I’m fascinated with this period of history and she is one queen who always hits the heart when I read her story. This is one of the best ones I’ve read so far and knowing Alison kept as close as possible to history made me even more sad. Something about the princesses of Wales they always get dealt a hard blow by the monarchy. Overall it was a beautifully written version of her. Looking forward to reading Anne’s next.
Book
Katherine of Aragon the true Queen ( Six Tudor Wives)
By Alison Weir
Once read a review will be written via Smashbomb and link posted in comments
A Spanish princess. Raised to be modest, obedient and devout. Destined to be an English Queen.
Six weeks from home across treacherous seas, everything is different: the language, the food, the weather. And for her there is no comfort in any of it. At sixteen-years-old, Catalina is alone among strangers.
She misses her mother. She mourns her lost brother.
She cannot trust even those assigned to her protection.
KATHERINE OF ARAGON. The first of Henry's Queens. Her story.
History tells us how she died. This captivating novel shows us how she lived.
It took me a bit longer than normal to finish this book I really enjoyed it but came away feel so sad for Katherine. I’m fascinated with this period of history and she is one queen who always hits the heart when I read her story. This is one of the best ones I’ve read so far and knowing Alison kept as close as possible to history made me even more sad. Something about the princesses of Wales they always get dealt a hard blow by the monarchy. Overall it was a beautifully written version of her. Looking forward to reading Anne’s next.
Deborah (162 KP) rated Richard III: The King in the Car Park in Books
Dec 21, 2018
I quote from the final page of this publication: "The writer of this book will face similar virulent criticism. It will be savaged in the book reviews on Amazon, mainly by non-readers, to take its ratings and thus popularity down." In fact, this is the last, but by no means the only rant by the author who appears to have a definite chip on his shoulder for some reason. Since he subjects Thomas Penn's work, 'The Winter King' to such virulent criticism, one can only suspect that he was turned down by Penn's publisher. One can hardly be surprised. I have read this book, despite wanting on a number of occasions to give up in disgust. It is full of errors of spelling (e.g. youngest for younger, now instead of not), so has evidently not had either a proof reader or an editor. There are also many factual errors with names and titles becoming hopelessly confused. On one page we're told that Sir James Tyrell was hanged and a couple of pages later we're told that Henry Tudor was so kind as to merely condescend to cut his head off!
I will admit that with pro-Ricardian sympathies I was probably never going to like this book, but it is a bit of a mess and feels like another case of jumping on the bandwagon. There is no index, no footnotes/endnotes and only a partial list of sources, which is enough to raise questions about academic rigour. If you are going to publish opinions, particular in The Great Debate, these really should be backed up by factual evidence. I think I am most irked by the hypocrisy of Mr Breverton telling us at one point that he is going to take a fresh impartial look at the subject and then immediately showing us exactly which colour he prefers his roses.
His list, near the back of the volume, of all the 'crimes' he thinks Richard III was guilty of really does teeter on the brink of blindness and absurdity. Apparently he is guilty in the case of the Earl of Warwick, son of Richard's older brother, George of Clarence, but whose claim to the throne was barred by his father's attainder (always reversible, but Warwick was then only a child of about 8 years). I'm pretty sure this Warwick was sent to Sheriff Hutton Castle to be brought up with other young persons, as befitted his status by Richard. Of course, as soon as Henry Tudor usurped the throne, this boy was locked up in the Tower only to be executed later on a trumped up charge. I think I know who the guilty party is in that case.
That is my frank opinion on this volume; I will now expect said author to savage me as he has everyone else on Amazon who has pointed out the self-evident shortcomings in this work.
I will admit that with pro-Ricardian sympathies I was probably never going to like this book, but it is a bit of a mess and feels like another case of jumping on the bandwagon. There is no index, no footnotes/endnotes and only a partial list of sources, which is enough to raise questions about academic rigour. If you are going to publish opinions, particular in The Great Debate, these really should be backed up by factual evidence. I think I am most irked by the hypocrisy of Mr Breverton telling us at one point that he is going to take a fresh impartial look at the subject and then immediately showing us exactly which colour he prefers his roses.
His list, near the back of the volume, of all the 'crimes' he thinks Richard III was guilty of really does teeter on the brink of blindness and absurdity. Apparently he is guilty in the case of the Earl of Warwick, son of Richard's older brother, George of Clarence, but whose claim to the throne was barred by his father's attainder (always reversible, but Warwick was then only a child of about 8 years). I'm pretty sure this Warwick was sent to Sheriff Hutton Castle to be brought up with other young persons, as befitted his status by Richard. Of course, as soon as Henry Tudor usurped the throne, this boy was locked up in the Tower only to be executed later on a trumped up charge. I think I know who the guilty party is in that case.
That is my frank opinion on this volume; I will now expect said author to savage me as he has everyone else on Amazon who has pointed out the self-evident shortcomings in this work.
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.
Deborah (162 KP) rated The Lost Kings: Lancaster, York and Tudor in Books
Jan 13, 2019
Riddled with Errors - Drove me to Despair!
The Lost Kings of Lancaster, York & Tudor by Amy Licence might be better as The Lost Copy Editor. There were so many mistakes it was just laughable. You're trying to read something and stopping really frequently as brain is telling you something doesn't add up. I got so frustrated that even in the first chapter I started writing in amendments with a pencil! In fact the first chapter is itself a massive blunder - it's entitled Edmund, Duke (Sic) of Rutland! How could the son of James I die in 1598 when Elizabeth I was still on the English throne and he wasn't James I? Well, he didn't die until 1612, as I ascertained within seconds - if only someone here had done the same!
The stuff about attitudes towards death and the impact of the deaths of these individuals was fairly interesting, but a lot of it was trying to squeeze complicated history into a relatively short space, which didn't do it justice. There are also rather large assumptions made without any particular evidence of reasoning. She goes on and on about Edward V being murdered, when in fact there isn't any evidence that would stand up in a court of law that he was killed by anyone. She apparently thinks that the Tyrell smothering story is 'most likely'. If she really believes that, there's a bridge I'd like to sell her......
The stuff about attitudes towards death and the impact of the deaths of these individuals was fairly interesting, but a lot of it was trying to squeeze complicated history into a relatively short space, which didn't do it justice. There are also rather large assumptions made without any particular evidence of reasoning. She goes on and on about Edward V being murdered, when in fact there isn't any evidence that would stand up in a court of law that he was killed by anyone. She apparently thinks that the Tyrell smothering story is 'most likely'. If she really believes that, there's a bridge I'd like to sell her......
The Haunting of Highdown Hall (Psychic Surveys #1)
6.0
Rate It
Book
Have you discovered the bestselling Psychic Surveys series yet? Perfect for fans of Stephen King,...
Lyndsey Gollogly (2893 KP) rated Jane Seymour: The Haunted Queen in Books
Nov 10, 2021
186 of 250
Book
Jane Seymour: The Haunted Queen ( Six Tudor Queens book 3)
By Alison Weir
Once read a review will be written via Smashbomb and link posted in comments
THE WOMAN HAUNTED BY THE FATE OF HER PREDECESSOR.
Eleven days after the death of Anne Boleyn, Jane is dressing for her wedding to the King.
She has witnessed at first hand how courtly play can quickly turn to danger and knows she must bear a son . . . or face ruin.
This new Queen must therefore step out from the shadows cast by Katherine and Anne. In doing so, can she expose a gentler side to the brutal King?
I went into this not knowing very little of Jane Seymour and I found the book enchanting. She was a pure soul and in Alisons words she was portrayed so well. You felt the love she had for Katherine and the love she had for Henry and of course the shared dislike for Anne! I actually cried reading the last two chapters it was a very unjust end for a woman who had just become a mother to a son that was craved so much! I absolutely love this period and I find Alisons books just a brilliant outlook on the events. After i read Anne Boleyn I was just angry with the ending of this I’m saddened. Highly recommend such a beautiful tale of a short lived queen.
Book
Jane Seymour: The Haunted Queen ( Six Tudor Queens book 3)
By Alison Weir
Once read a review will be written via Smashbomb and link posted in comments
THE WOMAN HAUNTED BY THE FATE OF HER PREDECESSOR.
Eleven days after the death of Anne Boleyn, Jane is dressing for her wedding to the King.
She has witnessed at first hand how courtly play can quickly turn to danger and knows she must bear a son . . . or face ruin.
This new Queen must therefore step out from the shadows cast by Katherine and Anne. In doing so, can she expose a gentler side to the brutal King?
I went into this not knowing very little of Jane Seymour and I found the book enchanting. She was a pure soul and in Alisons words she was portrayed so well. You felt the love she had for Katherine and the love she had for Henry and of course the shared dislike for Anne! I actually cried reading the last two chapters it was a very unjust end for a woman who had just become a mother to a son that was craved so much! I absolutely love this period and I find Alisons books just a brilliant outlook on the events. After i read Anne Boleyn I was just angry with the ending of this I’m saddened. Highly recommend such a beautiful tale of a short lived queen.
The Life and Reign of Edward the Fourth: King of England and France and Lord of Ireland: Volume 1
Cora L. Scofield and Ralph A. Griffiths
Book
Edward IV, (1442-1483) was King of England from 4 March 1461 until 3 October 1470, and again from 11...
Richard III: From Contemporary Chronicles, Letters and Records
Keith Dockray and P.W. Hammond
6.0
Rate It
Book
No English king has suffered wider fluctuations of reputation than Richard III, perhaps the most...