No comments about Queen Margaret of Scotland.

No comments about Tempestuous Petticoat: The Story of an Invincible Edwardian.

No comments about History Of Friedrich II Of Prussia Called Frederick The Great V3.

No comments about History Of Friedrich II Of Prussia Called Frederick The Great V2.

2 comments about Richard III (English Monarchs).

1. After reading Hick's effort at a biography about Anne Neville I thought perhaps this "leading" scholar of the period would be on firmer ground with Richard, for whom there is no lack of material. Indeed.
   However, by p.77 I could take no more; Hicks was caught manipulating a minor detail into a portrayal of Richard as a foolhardy, relentless opportunist whose greed made him the dupe of one Sir James Harrington, whose implied claims to Hornby Castle was legally specious and typical of Richard's political ineptitude, as if this Harrington was some unknown quantity to him, to his family!
   
   Had Hicks really read the biography of Richard by Prof. Charles Ross (whom he alleges to admire) he would certainly have come across this family in Ross's far more honest assessment of the facts: Harrington was the same family that stood by Richard's father, the Duke of York, especially Sir Thomas (the father of Sir James) who fought and died alongside York at Wakefield (Dec.1460).
   
   If there is nothing else that can be said about Richard I think it is he was loyal to the memory of his father and extended this loyalty to any of his father's adherents or heirs: those bonds were all he would have of this father whose head would be piked on Micklegate Bar in York when Richard was only eight.
   
   If Hicks is willing to play stupid games like this, just to make Richard look uniquely and mindlessly grapsing then for me Hicks lost all credibility and I proceeded to read every statement with not just caution but outright suspicion.
   
   One of the most annoying segments was concerning the "star witness," Dominic Mancini (p.125-136). To even suggest Mancini was in any way objective and just happened to be wandering around London in 1483, who just happened to know the Archbishop of Vienne (Angelo Cato, physician to the French king, Louis XI) strained my patience. Why any author hoping to establish Mancini as their "proof" that More and the Tudors had it right would not think to fully first establish Mancini's presumed credentials can only be doing so to plump up a very dangerous weakness in his "history."
   
   For example, who sent Mancini to London? Why early in 1483, who paid his living expenses, why did he leave just as suddenly and just as things were getting interesting, ie. a most unexpected coronation, in early July? When did he write any part of this history? What language was it written in? were there installment reports sent back to Cato while he was abroad? was he an agent of the French king's physician? was he there to report on the rumors of Edward IV's decline? Was he there to simply connect with other agents in the city, as a routine procedure? was he ever sent by Cato to any other country, as an ambassador, an agent, to check on any other king and their circle? If not, why not? When and where did he meet Cato? Why the English court?
   
   Since Hicks wasn't about to even allow he possibility that Mancini had been sent with an agenda I will provide it, thanks to the scepticism Hick's sloppy manner engenders - as far as I can ascertain from other author's references to Mancini he was probably sent by Cato as a agent, (and who knows how many others!) and specifically to report on the situation there. It was Cato's good fortune that his man was there at the time Edward IV died from his well known excesses. Mancini was recalled by Cato, with the coronation of Richard, at a most curious time: Why recall him then? Did he fear for Mancini's life? Was it now unsafe for Mancini, especially if he was consorting with Argentine, and how many others was Argentine in league with? when did Argentine leave London? Was the only mission for Mancini extended by his French "patron" - Cato - when his liege realized things had gone awary, as far as what would have been more beneficial to the French, that of a child king? Was Mancini only recalled once Cato quite suddenly realised what he was dealing with? Not the 12 year old stripling Edward V in the hands of his dozy, scholarly uncle Rivers; but instead, the most inopportune reality of Richard duke of Gloucester, now king, someone Cato et al knew to be openly hostile to them since the Treaty of Picquigny (1475) which Richard refused to sign much less attend it's signing.
   
   If Mancini showed up with any biases against Richard it was not Tudor or Lancastrian related, it was simple French mistrust and possibly even loathing for Richard, who most assuredly wanted that 1475 invasion to be another Agincourt!
   
   Mancini no doubt sent updates back to Cato, who once he recalled Mancini, then wanted a formal document drawn up to have on hand for future use if needed (for defamation, as a no doubt doctored tract would be). How much Mancini knew of these machinations I can't tell, he may simply have been aware of Cato's larger plans for his update reports only after he was recalled and then "made to" write them down as a history.
   
   So, read Hicks if you have nothing else to do, but read with a pen nearby, you will have to do alot of cross referencing to even hope to establish what is reliable versus what is Hick's tiresome malice concerning his subject.



2. The back cover calls this book a "biography" of Richard III. That, it should be emphasised, it is not. Many important events in the life of Richard III are only mentioned in passing. Readers who want to know whether Richard really ordered the murder of his nephews will have to look elsewhere, too. In fact, the author clearly assumes that the reader has already read a biography of this king, and is familiar with the facts.
   
   The book really is an assesment of Richard III as a politician: His career, the methods by which he climbed to power, and his downfall. The author makes an effort to situate Richard III in the the context of his own time, but at the same time very much portrays him as a politician who used techniques that are familiar to today's spin doctors.
   
   As such, this is a fine book, and well worth reading, even if the authors is at times guilty of too much repetition. It is an highly interesting assesment. All the same, the readers gets the annoying feeling that it is not an objective assesment; this clearly is the case for the prosecution. Where the author attempts to present also a case for the defense, he automatically falls back into prosecutorial mode. Hence the fifth star remains out of reach.

No comments about History Of Friedrich II Of Prussia Called Frederick The Great V4.

No comments about History Of Friedrich II Of Prussia Called Frederick The Great V5.

No comments about The Daily Life of the Queen: An Artist s Diary.

No comments about History Of Friedrich II Of Prussia Called Frederick The Great V1.

No comments about Louis XIV (European History in Perspective).