Search
Search results
Donald Fagen recommended My Man Godfrey (1957) in Movies (curated)
Deborah (162 KP) rated The Tudor Rose in Books
Dec 21, 2018
This book was written over 50 years ago, so I suppose we must make some allowances for light that has been shed on past events between now and then, but still, there were a number of silly errors in this book which didn't help its credibility: the pre-contract was with Eleanor Butler (nee Talbot) and for some odd reason the book gives her given name as Joan, and Edmund Tudor died of the plague and not in battle.
Overall the book follows a somewhat traditionalist stance, although Henry Tudor comes across as pretty cold and unlikeable. I wasn't convinced by some of the internal logic and some of the characterisation though. Anne Neville, for example. She is a figure we really don't know that much about, but it's hard to conceive she could be as simple and naive as she is portrayed here! Barnes does try it on a bit with trying to make us wonder if 'Perkin' is really Richard of York (and here the historical novelist has licence, because we really don't know!), despite having Bess keep adamantly stating that she knows her brothers are dead. We're also told that Elizabeth Woodville believes they died, which might lead one to question why she would have a finger in a rebellion against her daughter as queen consort? And if everybody really believed this, why did Sir William Stanley lose his head for saying he wouldn't fight against 'Perkin' if he was really a son of Edward IV - and that is in the historical record as well as this novel. There's an awful lot about Bess believing both Richard and Henry have potentially been culpable in acts of murder, but she herself in this novel is guilty of an act of treachery that is at least as bad!
Not a badly written novel, but I found it frustrating overall!
Overall the book follows a somewhat traditionalist stance, although Henry Tudor comes across as pretty cold and unlikeable. I wasn't convinced by some of the internal logic and some of the characterisation though. Anne Neville, for example. She is a figure we really don't know that much about, but it's hard to conceive she could be as simple and naive as she is portrayed here! Barnes does try it on a bit with trying to make us wonder if 'Perkin' is really Richard of York (and here the historical novelist has licence, because we really don't know!), despite having Bess keep adamantly stating that she knows her brothers are dead. We're also told that Elizabeth Woodville believes they died, which might lead one to question why she would have a finger in a rebellion against her daughter as queen consort? And if everybody really believed this, why did Sir William Stanley lose his head for saying he wouldn't fight against 'Perkin' if he was really a son of Edward IV - and that is in the historical record as well as this novel. There's an awful lot about Bess believing both Richard and Henry have potentially been culpable in acts of murder, but she herself in this novel is guilty of an act of treachery that is at least as bad!
Not a badly written novel, but I found it frustrating overall!
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.