Search
Search results
Deborah (162 KP) rated The Black Arrow in Books
Dec 21, 2018
ClareR (6037 KP) rated An Unknown Welshman: A novel of Henry VII in Books
Jan 5, 2019
So good, that it couldn't possibly be history, surely?!
This is the story of how Henry VII came to be king, from his birth in Wales, to his crowning and marriage to Elizabeth of York.
I really liked the descriptions of life during the Wars of the Roses, how fickle the nobility seemed to be, swapping allegiances in order to keep their lands, possessions and lives. There was a good deal of action as well. Sieges, battles, hunts: mostly though, Henry had to wait around a lot, hoping that foreign dignitaries would keep him and feed and clothe him, not to mention the money that was sent over from the Crown in order to keep him away. Whilst eh was held captive in Wales, this was to the advantage of the man keeping him: he got to hold Henry's title and lands.
The Wars of the Roses can be very complicated and longwinded - there was a lot of to-ing and fro-ing between the sides. This is a good way to understand the Lancastrian (Henry's) side of the history. And it was fascinating to read.
Many thanks to Sapere Books for my copy to read and honestly review.
I really liked the descriptions of life during the Wars of the Roses, how fickle the nobility seemed to be, swapping allegiances in order to keep their lands, possessions and lives. There was a good deal of action as well. Sieges, battles, hunts: mostly though, Henry had to wait around a lot, hoping that foreign dignitaries would keep him and feed and clothe him, not to mention the money that was sent over from the Crown in order to keep him away. Whilst eh was held captive in Wales, this was to the advantage of the man keeping him: he got to hold Henry's title and lands.
The Wars of the Roses can be very complicated and longwinded - there was a lot of to-ing and fro-ing between the sides. This is a good way to understand the Lancastrian (Henry's) side of the history. And it was fascinating to read.
Many thanks to Sapere Books for my copy to read and honestly review.
Deborah (162 KP) rated Wars Of The Roses in Books
Dec 21, 2018
I think the title of the book is rather misleading - it's not really about the Wars of the Roses per se. The blurb on the inside of the dust jacket tells me it's a book looking more at the impact of this civil strife and the political, social and military situation. It does, as it claims, include many primary sources; 'English and European writings, diplomatic correspondence, personal letters and propoganda', but it is the promised 'detailed interpretation based on modern research' that I must have missed while reading this! To me this was a series of unconnected original documents linked with short paragraphs of text by Lander. In many places the book is so bogged down with inumerable footnotes that the flow of the text is completely lost.
Nice idea, but it doesn't work here.
Nice idea, but it doesn't work here.
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.
ClareR (6037 KP) rated The Lady of the Ravens in Books
Jan 7, 2020
The Lady of the Ravens is based on the real historical character of Joan Vaux. I find historical fiction fascinating, especially those books which have a foot firmly placed in what was the real world.
Joan and her mother are taken in to the care of Margaret Beaufort, Henry VII’s mother, during the end years of the Wars of the Roses. She becomes a good friend to Princess Elizabeth in the time before she marries Henry, and goes on to be a Lady in Waiting and eventually the Lady Governess to the Princesses Margaret and Mary.
I really enjoyed all of the historical detail and what life was really like in Tudor England: the preoccupation with death and the many ways that a woman especially, could die, and the precariousness of children’s lives.
I had never really thought about the Ravens in the Tower of London (you’re never interested about the places that are on your doorstep as you’re growing up, I fear 🤷🏼♀️), assumed they’d always been there and that they’d always been seen as important to the realm. But in this novel, we learn that they were actually seen as vermin by the nobility and soldiers stationed there, until Joan and her servant looked after them, convincing others - royalty especially - of their significance to the safety of England and the Royal Family.
I haven’t read Joanna Hickson books before, but I really enjoyed the characters, the insights into the royal family, the uncertainty around the possible sons of York (Perkin Warbeck for one), the descriptions of everyday life - and just the evocative styled her writing.
Many thanks to NetGalley and HarperCollins for my copy of this great book to read and review.
Joan and her mother are taken in to the care of Margaret Beaufort, Henry VII’s mother, during the end years of the Wars of the Roses. She becomes a good friend to Princess Elizabeth in the time before she marries Henry, and goes on to be a Lady in Waiting and eventually the Lady Governess to the Princesses Margaret and Mary.
I really enjoyed all of the historical detail and what life was really like in Tudor England: the preoccupation with death and the many ways that a woman especially, could die, and the precariousness of children’s lives.
I had never really thought about the Ravens in the Tower of London (you’re never interested about the places that are on your doorstep as you’re growing up, I fear 🤷🏼♀️), assumed they’d always been there and that they’d always been seen as important to the realm. But in this novel, we learn that they were actually seen as vermin by the nobility and soldiers stationed there, until Joan and her servant looked after them, convincing others - royalty especially - of their significance to the safety of England and the Royal Family.
I haven’t read Joanna Hickson books before, but I really enjoyed the characters, the insights into the royal family, the uncertainty around the possible sons of York (Perkin Warbeck for one), the descriptions of everyday life - and just the evocative styled her writing.
Many thanks to NetGalley and HarperCollins for my copy of this great book to read and review.
Deborah (162 KP) rated Fatal Colours in Books
Dec 21, 2018
Overall I thought this was a good book written in a very readable style. I've only given it 3 stars, however, as it does fall down in a number of ways.
First and foremost, the title of the book is a bit misleading. The Battle of Towton itself accounts for probably no more than a quarter of the text. I'm not saying the the rest of the book is bad, because it deals with the whole 'first half' of the Wars of the Roses and looks at how Henry VI's incapacity to rule (and the reasons for this) where in some degree responsible for the conflict, but it might be disappointing if you were expecting a full on coverage of Towton. You could try Andrew Boardman's book instead if you were interested in the battle.
My second disappointment was the introduction. Why would you ask Starkey, a well known Tudor historian, with a typical Tudor historian rabid anti-Yorkist views to write an introduction to a book ostensibly about one of the great Yorkist victories? This was one reason I held off buying this book for quite some time, not helped by the fact that the Kindle download sample was just part of this introduction, which wasn't helpful at all.
Goodwin delivered his own Coup de Grace in my eyes right at the end where he almost offhandedly accused Richard III of both the murder of his nephews (hotly debated, I admit, but without a shred of solid evidence) and then saying he 'probably' murdered Henry VI!!! Unless you take Shakespeare as gospel, there is absolutely no evidence at all for this and it's most unlikely. These couple of throwaway comments severely undermined Goodwin's credibility, which was a shame, as I felt that the book overall was good, but it makes me wonder if there was other sloppy research in there?
First and foremost, the title of the book is a bit misleading. The Battle of Towton itself accounts for probably no more than a quarter of the text. I'm not saying the the rest of the book is bad, because it deals with the whole 'first half' of the Wars of the Roses and looks at how Henry VI's incapacity to rule (and the reasons for this) where in some degree responsible for the conflict, but it might be disappointing if you were expecting a full on coverage of Towton. You could try Andrew Boardman's book instead if you were interested in the battle.
My second disappointment was the introduction. Why would you ask Starkey, a well known Tudor historian, with a typical Tudor historian rabid anti-Yorkist views to write an introduction to a book ostensibly about one of the great Yorkist victories? This was one reason I held off buying this book for quite some time, not helped by the fact that the Kindle download sample was just part of this introduction, which wasn't helpful at all.
Goodwin delivered his own Coup de Grace in my eyes right at the end where he almost offhandedly accused Richard III of both the murder of his nephews (hotly debated, I admit, but without a shred of solid evidence) and then saying he 'probably' murdered Henry VI!!! Unless you take Shakespeare as gospel, there is absolutely no evidence at all for this and it's most unlikely. These couple of throwaway comments severely undermined Goodwin's credibility, which was a shame, as I felt that the book overall was good, but it makes me wonder if there was other sloppy research in there?
Deborah (162 KP) rated The Crowland Chronicle Continuations, 1459 1486 in Books
Dec 21, 2018
Anyone who has read about the Wars of the Roses, and about Richard III in particular, has probably come across mention of The Croyland (now known as Crowland) Chronicle, and in particular the Continuation that refers to events in this period.
This volume was produced to mark the 500th anniversary or the writing of the Continuation and is only the second English translation and publication of it.
The book itself is a very scholarly book and the editors seem to assume that a reader will have a working knowledge of Latin as in the introductory section there are numerous quotations in Latin which are not then rendered in English. The introductory section is quite in-depth and indeed takes up more than half of the pages in the volume! A lot of it I will admit to having found rather heavy going, although the information I did glean was interesting and useful. I was not particularly aware of the history of the original manuscript, in that is had been badly damaged in a fire and much of the current text was therefore taken from a copy of the text written as part of the earlier English publication. There are some plates which show some of the surviving pages of the manuscript, but not all pages have survived, so the current editors have used the earlier transcript as a starting point. There is also an interesting and useful consideration of the authorship of the Continuation.
The Continuation itself takes up just under half of the volume and the original Latin text is printed on one side the the English translation on the facing page. I found the translation quite readable, even if it did feel like a bit of a whirlwind tour of events! Oddly, the national political picture breaks off several times and we have inserted a sort of obituary of Abbots of Croyland who happened to die as this point in the main narrative.
What I think I would like to see, and what would be of interest to a general historical reader, would be a publication of the English translation with an introduction and analysis geared more to the general reader than to the academic scholar.
This volume was produced to mark the 500th anniversary or the writing of the Continuation and is only the second English translation and publication of it.
The book itself is a very scholarly book and the editors seem to assume that a reader will have a working knowledge of Latin as in the introductory section there are numerous quotations in Latin which are not then rendered in English. The introductory section is quite in-depth and indeed takes up more than half of the pages in the volume! A lot of it I will admit to having found rather heavy going, although the information I did glean was interesting and useful. I was not particularly aware of the history of the original manuscript, in that is had been badly damaged in a fire and much of the current text was therefore taken from a copy of the text written as part of the earlier English publication. There are some plates which show some of the surviving pages of the manuscript, but not all pages have survived, so the current editors have used the earlier transcript as a starting point. There is also an interesting and useful consideration of the authorship of the Continuation.
The Continuation itself takes up just under half of the volume and the original Latin text is printed on one side the the English translation on the facing page. I found the translation quite readable, even if it did feel like a bit of a whirlwind tour of events! Oddly, the national political picture breaks off several times and we have inserted a sort of obituary of Abbots of Croyland who happened to die as this point in the main narrative.
What I think I would like to see, and what would be of interest to a general historical reader, would be a publication of the English translation with an introduction and analysis geared more to the general reader than to the academic scholar.
Deborah (162 KP) rated The Scandalous Duchess in Books
Dec 21, 2018
I have to admit that I do enjoy Anne O'Brien as a writer of historical fiction. Maybe it's not great literature, but it's still an enjoyable ready and she actually makes a first person narrative come off, whereas with some other authors it sounds unnatural or is handled clumsily.
O'Brien's latest offering gives us the tale of Katherine de Swynford (nee de Roet), famous (or perhaps infamous!) as the mistress and later wife of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster (and if you didn't know that he marries her, I think the title might give it away, so I don't think it's a spoiler!). There actually isn't all that much known about Katherine herself, which may seem surprising. I'm sure there may be other novels about her, but by far the best known is Anya Seton's 'Katherine' which might well give another author pause when looking to cover the same ground. The fact that so little is really known about her life does give an author a fair bit of freedom. It must be fairly obvious that there is a love story in there - she was his mistress for many years and then he chose to marry her, which I doubt anyone would have expected.
The novel's subtitle give it as 'the forbidden affair that started the Tudors' - who of course were descended from the legitimated Beaufort line.... but then again Joan was also the maternal grandmother of Edward IV and Richard III! The benefit of hindsight can show us clearly how a seemingly small decision, such as Katherine's decision to acquiesce in becoming John of Gaunt's mistress, can have such a huge impact - namely being a large factor in the Wars of the Roses!
I found this a well written and entertaining novel and I do enjoy my historical fiction! If you've read O'Brien before, I think you'll like this and if not I would recommend giving her a try. I find her writing far superior to the much touted Philippa Gregory.
O'Brien's latest offering gives us the tale of Katherine de Swynford (nee de Roet), famous (or perhaps infamous!) as the mistress and later wife of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster (and if you didn't know that he marries her, I think the title might give it away, so I don't think it's a spoiler!). There actually isn't all that much known about Katherine herself, which may seem surprising. I'm sure there may be other novels about her, but by far the best known is Anya Seton's 'Katherine' which might well give another author pause when looking to cover the same ground. The fact that so little is really known about her life does give an author a fair bit of freedom. It must be fairly obvious that there is a love story in there - she was his mistress for many years and then he chose to marry her, which I doubt anyone would have expected.
The novel's subtitle give it as 'the forbidden affair that started the Tudors' - who of course were descended from the legitimated Beaufort line.... but then again Joan was also the maternal grandmother of Edward IV and Richard III! The benefit of hindsight can show us clearly how a seemingly small decision, such as Katherine's decision to acquiesce in becoming John of Gaunt's mistress, can have such a huge impact - namely being a large factor in the Wars of the Roses!
I found this a well written and entertaining novel and I do enjoy my historical fiction! If you've read O'Brien before, I think you'll like this and if not I would recommend giving her a try. I find her writing far superior to the much touted Philippa Gregory.
Deborah (162 KP) rated The White Queen (The Plantagenet and Tudor Novels, #2) in Books
Dec 19, 2018
Not quite sure why I decided to read this as the only other book I've read by Gregory was The Other Boleyn Girl, which I thought was pretty dreadful. I suppose I find it difficult to keep away from anything connected with The Wars of the Roses; I certainly found that I'd read almost every book listed in the bibliography and could have recommended a few more that might have been beneficial for the author to have perused.....
While not the worst book I've ever read I know I won't be reading this again and as to The Red Queen - well, I'd probably want to strangle Margaret Beaufort before the first chapter was out, so let's leave it at that shall we.
I do read a lot of historical novels and in general I find that it is much harder for a novel to work well when it is written in the first person, as this is. With a single viewpoint you are restricting yourself and that shows here at several points where the author has to break out of the Elizabeth Woodville narrative to give us a chunk of what is going on elsewhere. I've never found EW a particularly sympathetic historical character and I'm not sure she comes across that well here, either. Certainly in the latter half of the book it's difficult to see what motivation Gregory is ascribing to her.
The family of EW's mother did believe themselves descended from a water goddess and it was not unusual for powerful women to be accused of witchcraft, to discredit either them or their husbands (see Eleanor Cobham). I daresay that mixing of love potions and use of figures and all that sort of thing would have gone on, but the whistling up of storms was going just a bit too far for me. I also thought that the Foreshadowing element of the story was a bit overdone - although that may be because I know too much about the period!
There were also a number of glaring errors and oddities which should have been picked up somewhere down the line. Looks like the favourite one is the anachronistic use of the word 'numpty'! In other places George of Clarence is described as a duke one moment and his wife, Isabel as a countess the next (she would have had that as a subsidiary title, but she was the duchess of Clarence!), an execution was said to have taken place by the axe when the person in question is known to have been hanged, the Parhelion (three suns)are said to have been at Towton when it was in fact at Mortimer's Cross (Towton took place in a snowstorm - I doubt they could see one sun, let alone three!) and Gregory needed to study her history of Barnet a bit more closely as she had her battle lines completely mixed up!
Obviously there are some big gaps in our knowledge, which is grist to the fiction writers mill! I thought her Princes in the Tower solution was interesting and glad to see that she acknowledged that Richard III would have had little to gain from their deaths at this point. Not sure if Lambert Simnel is 'explained' in one of the other books in this series, as EW's part is certainly interesting. Also interesting that although the name of Eleanor Butler is mentioned early on and the anullment of the marriage on grounds of Edward's previous marriage come into play later, the two are never linked by the author and she chooses to offer no comment on this piece of the puzzle.
While not the worst book I've ever read I know I won't be reading this again and as to The Red Queen - well, I'd probably want to strangle Margaret Beaufort before the first chapter was out, so let's leave it at that shall we.
I do read a lot of historical novels and in general I find that it is much harder for a novel to work well when it is written in the first person, as this is. With a single viewpoint you are restricting yourself and that shows here at several points where the author has to break out of the Elizabeth Woodville narrative to give us a chunk of what is going on elsewhere. I've never found EW a particularly sympathetic historical character and I'm not sure she comes across that well here, either. Certainly in the latter half of the book it's difficult to see what motivation Gregory is ascribing to her.
The family of EW's mother did believe themselves descended from a water goddess and it was not unusual for powerful women to be accused of witchcraft, to discredit either them or their husbands (see Eleanor Cobham). I daresay that mixing of love potions and use of figures and all that sort of thing would have gone on, but the whistling up of storms was going just a bit too far for me. I also thought that the Foreshadowing element of the story was a bit overdone - although that may be because I know too much about the period!
There were also a number of glaring errors and oddities which should have been picked up somewhere down the line. Looks like the favourite one is the anachronistic use of the word 'numpty'! In other places George of Clarence is described as a duke one moment and his wife, Isabel as a countess the next (she would have had that as a subsidiary title, but she was the duchess of Clarence!), an execution was said to have taken place by the axe when the person in question is known to have been hanged, the Parhelion (three suns)are said to have been at Towton when it was in fact at Mortimer's Cross (Towton took place in a snowstorm - I doubt they could see one sun, let alone three!) and Gregory needed to study her history of Barnet a bit more closely as she had her battle lines completely mixed up!
Obviously there are some big gaps in our knowledge, which is grist to the fiction writers mill! I thought her Princes in the Tower solution was interesting and glad to see that she acknowledged that Richard III would have had little to gain from their deaths at this point. Not sure if Lambert Simnel is 'explained' in one of the other books in this series, as EW's part is certainly interesting. Also interesting that although the name of Eleanor Butler is mentioned early on and the anullment of the marriage on grounds of Edward's previous marriage come into play later, the two are never linked by the author and she chooses to offer no comment on this piece of the puzzle.