Search
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.