8 of 10 people found the following review helpful
What to believe?,
This review is from: Queens Consort: England's Medieval Queens (Paperback)
I was really looking forward to reading this as wanted to fill in some gaps in my knowledge as is so often in history, the woman behind the throne is overlooked.
I think it would have been very helpful to have a family tree of each Queen at the beginning of each chapter as because of the many inter marriages between families, it could be quite confusing trying to visualise how everyone was related.
The chapter on Eleanor of Aquataine was very disappointing. The author was very dismissive of her and seeming not to like her, skipped over vast periods in her life and I felt as if I hadn't been told anything.
The chapter on Anne Neville really was appalling. So factually inaccurate, it is unbelievable that it was left in its form to be published. Quoting Alison Weir also gave away where the author sympathies lie and clearly not with these members of the Yorkists. No mention of Bishop Stillington at all. Richard did not accuse Edward 1V and Duke of Clarence being 'bastard born'. He did not 'take care' of Clarence's son to stop him being a threat to the throne; under the attainder of his father he had no right in the succession. Richard did not stop sleeping with Anne because he was fed up with her but because she had consumption. Did it not occur to the author that Elizabeth York wanted Anne to die because she was suffering and in distress? No, Bessy just wanted her way with Dickon.
These two chapters left me wondering how much of the rest of the book I could take as accurate and truthful.
A really good idea ruined.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-5 of 5 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 20 Oct 2010 15:37:27 BDT
Alison Weir says:
I'm not sure why Lisa Hilton's 'sympathies' should lie with me when my take on Richard III - and no doubt hers - was informed by extensive, and objective, research. I came to that research with revisionist views - to my surprise, I had to rethink them as the project progressed. I don't have an axe to grind on the matter: I am very interested in all the arguments. But I do wish that people would take a more objective, and informed, view of the subject.
In reply to an earlier post on 22 Oct 2010 14:14:48 BDT
SJC no 1 fan says:
She quotes you aside from anything else and it is well accepted that you write and think as if Richard was one of the biggest villains in history. Why do you presume that my view is not objective and informed? What makes you the sole authority on what Richard did or didn't do? You have no more evidence than anyone else and are no more qualified than many who write about him, and have no idea how much I have read and researched about him. If you wish people would take a more informed and objective view, perhaps you should try.
Posted on 10 Apr 2012 10:57:10 BDT
Medieval Lady says:
So really, you object to this book because the author is sometimes critIcal of the Yorkists and (shock horror!) Richard III. Whatever happened to objectivity? Richard III was not the Saint the some Richardians believed him to be. He could be scheming, ruthless, brutal, grasping and power-hungry.
As to the comment on Edward of Clarence, the nephew or Richard, the attainder of his father could have been reversed by Parliament without very much difficulty so allowing him to suceed to the throne, yet parliament chose not to take this course of action.
In reply to an earlier post on 10 Apr 2012 11:06:14 BDT
Last edited by the author on 10 Apr 2012 11:10:36 BDT
Medieval Lady says:
It seems abunduntly clear from this review, and your review of Dr Michael Hicks bigraphy of Anne Neville, along with the arrogently superior tone with which you attack those who do not share your views that you are particularly militant Richardian.
Before you harp on about other people not being 'balanced and objective' you should perhaps be willing to accept that Richard III was niether perfect nor a saint.
He did things wrong, and he was not beyond reproach and why the hell should he be?
If you had truly reasearched his life and reign to such an extent as you clam to have done you ought to know this, so what is wrong with acknowledging Richard had as many shortcomings as any human being?
If you had a truly objective view of Richard you would be willing to take the positive with the negative, and realise that he was not in the right all the time, instead of condemning as wicked heretics all those who dare to speak negatively of your idol.
In reply to an earlier post on 10 Apr 2012 13:46:39 BDT
Last edited by the author on 10 Apr 2012 13:55:21 BDT
SJC no 1 fan says:
Did you actually read what I had written before you started ranting? The book by Hilton is short on fact and where she does use it, she uses other already well stated sources. Hicks' was so bad I have fogotten how bad it is until you mentioned it. Yes I know that could have happened re Clarence, and I know he was Richard's nephew, and yes he could have had a right to the throne, so why did Henry not kill him straight away, and then only did when he 'escaped from the Tower', aside from the fact that it was believed he, Clarence, was of 'simple' mind and therefore no threat as a ruler anyway? It took you two years to write your response, you obviously thought about it for a long time. Have you read the book? I think not. I know what I believe what Richard was and wasn't. I know he wasn't a saint, but then which monarchs were? Other than the present Queen every monarch has had their good and bad points, but I do not believe he was as black as Shakespeare tried to paint him. More gave up on criticising him, which of course in historical terms to you would probably mean nothing.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›