Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
7:52 pm
February 24, 2010
Offline
That is good to hear, Olga. I want a book that is neutral. I know the back and forth that goes on with Richard.
My other passion is Henry II. The devil incarnate. HAH!
I don’t know what you have heard, but I enjoyed Penn’s book on Henry VII. That is my one and only book about him though. Is there controversy over it?
Yes, a TARDIS. Why didn’t I think of that? And on the way back, we can stop in Dallas! 
3:21 pm
October 28, 2011
Offline
We should probably make a couple more Tower stops, say 1536 and 1542. Or maybe just make sure Henry stays knocked out in 1536…
I am not sure there is controversy over Penn’s book but there has been some complaints it only concentrates on the last decade of Henry’s reign, when his reputation began to sour. I figured would read Chrimes first. There seems to be no good reason to not include all of his reign. I actually think the early years are particularly interesting.
I really want to read about King John but I am still trying to stick to backwards-chronological order I still have a lot of WOTR reading to do this year. I think it might take me five years to get back to Edward, Mary and Elizabeth….
I just read Inside the Tudor Court on Chapuys by Lauren Mackay and it is brilliant.
1:35 am
May 3, 2013
Offline
Have to recommend, again, Perkin (aka The Perfect Prince) by Ann Wroe. Tremendous book:
‘The story of Perkin Warbeck is one of the most compelling mysteries of English history. A young man suddenly emerged claiming to be Richard of York, the younger of the Princes in the Tower. As such, he tormented Henry VII for eight years. He tried three times to invade England and behaved like a prince. Officially, however, he was proclaimed to be Perkin Warbeck, the son of a Flemish boatman. A diplomatic pawn, he was used by the greatest European rulers of the age for their own purposes. All who dealt with him gave him the identity they wished him to have: either the Duke of York or a jumped-up lad from Flanders. It is possible that he was neither. It is also possible that, by the end, even he did not really know who he was…’
2:26 am
January 3, 2012
Offline
Olga said
We should probably make a couple more Tower stops, say 1536 and 1542. Or maybe just make sure Henry stays knocked out in 1536…
I am not sure there is controversy over Penn’s book but there has been some complaints it only concentrates on the last decade of Henry’s reign, when his reputation began to sour. I figured would read Chrimes first. There seems to be no good reason to not include all of his reign. I actually think the early years are particularly interesting.
I really want to read about King John but I am still trying to stick to backwards-chronological order
I just read Inside the Tudor Court on Chapuys by Lauren Mackay and it is brilliant.
It seems of late Olga that a lot of controvesy is being blown about by King John. You have perhaps heard these rumours/Suspisions yourself already. Although history books tell us that Isabella of Angouleme was around the age of 12 when he married her, (the youngest age permitted for a sexual relationship) Marriages/ Betrothals however took place as we all know as little as being a babe in arms still, very few of these so called “cradle betrothals” actually became the full blown thing with the bride and groom standing in front of the man with the pointy hat and waving his arms about, but they existed none the less. Anyway it seems as if evidence has come to light that Isabella was perhaps as young as 8 or 9 when King John took her as his wife. In a way that could of explained why she didn’t get pregnant until they had been married for about 6 years I believe.
It was said that John preferred to spend his time in bed with Isabella, whilst allowing the French king to take over John’s French terrorties one by one, until Calais was all that was left. I believe Isabella was sexually precosious and very forward, but then lets face it children would have been aware of what sex was from a fairly early age, anyway. Their childhood ended when they were about 5 when they were expected to act as miniture adults. A perspective Bridegroom’s parents would have at least expected their Son’s future wife to act with some decorum.
King John was a nasty piece of work no doubt about that, but I find his persona very difficult to unravel. He would laugh and think nothing of it to rape a woman and kill people left right and centre just because they either looked at him the wrong way or said something however innocent that offended him. He bullied his clergy too refusing to except Stephen Langton the Pope’s elect as his Archbishop of Canterbury over his own choice, whose name for the moment escapes me. He was also very miserly when it came to giving money, in fact he jealously covetted it, but whenever he saw a begger he always made a point of giving them a coin or 2?
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
12:48 pm
October 28, 2011
Offline
And I told you the last time we discussed it Bo, that you have been reading too many Robin Hood stories. It’s actually Richard I that was accused of rape, not John. As for his “coveting” money, Richard left none for the kingdom. He blew all the treasury while he abandoned his country to fight his crusades.
I’ve got Perkin here somewhere Steve, I should probably get around to reading it, it’s enormous!
3:18 pm
May 3, 2013
Offline
It’s a bit of an acquired taste, Olga, but I loved it. A genuinely imaginative non-fiction book. 
5:36 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
Olga said
And I told you the last time we discussed it Bo, that you have been reading too many Robin Hood stories. It’s actually Richard I that was accused of rape, not John. As for his “coveting” money, Richard left none for the kingdom. He blew all the treasury while he abandoned his country to fight his crusades.
I’ve got Perkin here somewhere Steve, I should probably get around to reading it, it’s enormous!
LOL Olga If Robin hood had existed I find it highly unlikely that he would have robbed the rich, to give it away to others in need he would have kept it for himself. Dicky 1 certainly bankrupted England that was for sure, it’s not as if he spent that much time in England. I think it was probably around 18 months to 2 years during his whole reign. I suppose you can sort of understand John’s greed in a way. But I do feel that John did have some of the traits he has been accused of certainly a hot temper, and that he was possibly a little bombastic in his manners. There’s no doubt as well that he was excommuicated, and that he had to grovel to the Pope for forgiveness, and to welcomed back into the Papist fold. But I also feel that there maybe a chance that he wasn’t all bad. As one historian described him he was a bit of a shit, he did things that rubbed people up the wrong way and annoyed them. Hence the reason why we have Magna Carta (Great Charter)
Was Dicky 1 such a good King for England? No doubt he was a good soldier but what good did he actually bring to England? The answer to that is not a lot, considering that England to him was just a bank for him to take money from to fund a war that he would never win. He did nothing about succuring the succession to the throne, yes he married, but from what little we know of Berengaria, they were rarely together, she never came to England, and died forgotten in a abbey in La Mans in 1230. In fact we probably know her more than Dicky 1 ever did. To him she was just someone who hung around the place, and bumped into a few times in passing. I would say in that respect and more England’s future he was just being selfish and bloody minded when he didn’t even think about what would happen to England once he had died and I doubt he really cared anyway. The only good thing I suppose you could say he did was name John as his heir, in place of Arthur of Brittany, who was by rights the next king after Richard as
Arthur was the son of Geoffrey John’s older brother. Perhaps when Dicky was dying he realised the mistakes he had made, and perhaps had a feeling of remorse that he hadn’t provided for England. Arthur would no way be excepted a forgiener was one problem and being a child was the other one. I believe Arthur was about 16. Did John kill Arthur? Hmm again it’s another difficult one to call I don’t think so personally. Why should he, England had excepted him as King so why would John want to kill him? In my opinion I think Arthur had heard 1 too many Horror stories about John and tried to escape from Rouen, and his escape whent wrong and he died in an accident. It’s quite possible I suppose that John might have given him a few tellings off and maybe even of clouted him one, but I don’t think he actually killed Arthur. John may have inadvertedly said something along the same lines as his father did when Thomas a becket was killed “Who will rid me of this troublesome preist” or in this case “Who will rid me of this troublesome child”, which in turn led to one of John’s men taking the meaning literely and doing away with Arthur without John’s knowlwedge.
It was said that Dicky 1 was possibly homosexual or Bisexual, difficult one to call to be honest. If I have remembered rightly (My mind is a complete fog at the moment with another project I’m working on) he did have a least 1 bastard child, in which case he may have been bisexual. If he was totally homosexual, it doesn’t excuse the fact that he failed in giving England an heir, he may have felt sick at the thought of having sex with Berengaria, but he had a duty to England and to secure the throne of England. It’s suspected that E2 was possibly Homosexual, and yet he understood the importance of securing the the throne, and Isabella (the she wolf) did have 4 evenly spaced children.
Anyway whatever the truth of the matter, history only remembers what hassle and agrivation John caused.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
10:03 pm
October 28, 2011
Offline
I’ll try and read it this year Steve, I have heard mainly good reports on it.
Bo I’ve got a book here to read by Ralph Turner which tries to look at John in a more balanced light. And a “bit of a shit” is a far cry from a rapist and a tyrant. People think Richard III has had the worst treatment in fiction, I think John has had it far worse.
As for Arthur, I haven’t read about it properly yet but you should never think he was not a threat. Even if people preferred John, there was always someone wanting to rebel against the King and anyone else with a claim to the throne was a threat. They would always be a focus for rebellion.
I doubt Richard’s sexuality, whatever it was, had anything to do with his not having children. As you say Edward II had lots of kids, and so did James I. Asfor whether he was a good King, I don;t think he was. But most people seem to value warmongering over anything else.
10:49 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
There was no doubt Arthur could be viewed as a threat, and maybe there were some people who did actually did favour Arthur over John. But I think the saying “better the Devil you know” was pehaps in play when John took the throne. Arthur had never been to England and had been brought up in Brittany and the French courts. He knew little to nothing about the English people and from what little I have read of Arthur he came across as being raather arrogant and hostile, towards anyone or anything that wasn’t to do with his own country. That’s just my opinion mind you.
If my lousy memory is actuall working right now I do recall something about the latter half of John’s reign, that the barons were so fed up with John’s erractic and sometimes brutal behaviour that they actually invited the Dauphin of France to come and take England’s throne. When that was all set to kick off John died and his son succeeded him, so the barons politely told Louis the Dauphin, thanks but no thanks, sling your hook.
I agree John did rather get the rough end of the pineapple. Dicky 1 was a good soldier and deserved the name Lionheart, but like you I don’t think he was a good King at all, all he cared about was War, well the crusades, it got him nothing either either in wealth or land. he was a vainglorious fool. and because of it his death came about of a broken pot full of a few worthless coins. At least if he died in the Crusades, it might have been argued that he was a hero. But personally I think he was a selfish, self centered Tit.
I’ll check into that book title Olga. Thanks
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
3:55 am
October 28, 2011
Offline
Sure they “invited” Bolingbroke to take the throne from Richard II and then tried to kill Bolingbroke, how many times? Seems they spent most of the middle ages either pissing and moaning about their monarchs or trying to kill them.
Lots of male historians like Richard I, Edward III, Henry V, you wonder why?
It appeals to their testosterone levels.
This is the book. It’s only available in eBook at the moment but your library may have it, it is fairly new.
9:25 am
January 3, 2012
Offline
Olga said
Sure they “invited” Bolingbroke to take the throne from Richard II and then tried to kill Bolingbroke, how many times? Seems they spent most of the middle ages either pissing and moaning about their monarchs or trying to kill them.
Lots of male historians like Richard I, Edward III, Henry V, you wonder why?
This is the book. It’s only available in eBook at the moment but your library may have it, it is fairly new.
Thanks again Olga. I’ll certainly give that a whirl.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
8:21 pm
December 5, 2009
Offline
There’s an excellent book about George Boleyn just about to be published by these two birds called Cherry and Ridgway. May be worth a look.
8:30 pm
February 24, 2010
Offline
Louise,
Do we know that! We’ve been waiting for this book for a very long time. So looking forward to it.
I just ordered King John by Turner. Yesterday I ordered the book about Perkin. You guys are costing me way too much money.
9:18 pm
November 18, 2010
Offline
Louise said
There’s an excellent book about George Boleyn just about to be published by these two birds called Cherry and Ridgway. May be worth a look.
That should upset Lord David of Starkey unless it just pedddles fluff history rather than research and manly type brain usage like that…
It's always bunnies.
10:50 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
I’m lookng forward to this book very much, I knew you could do it Louise, and I wish you every success with it.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
1:00 am
October 28, 2011
Offline
Sorry Sharon, I shouldn’t infect everyone with my book collecting habit Amy Licence has just told me about the Six Wives book she is working on for next year, I don’t think any of our bank accounts will be getting a rest anytime soon.
Cherry and Ridgway? That sounds familiar. Might be worth a look
10:23 am
April 9, 2011
Offline
I am hanging out for the George biography to be published. Already made space for it on my Tudor shelf.
Quick question: What would be the best book to purchase on Henry VIII? Not that I should really be spending any more money.
1:00 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
On the odd occation Charity shops do have a gem or 2 on their shelves. I’ve had a few lucky finds in charity shops of late.
Know what you mean about spending money, I’m convinced I must have been a pelican in my previous life, because no matter which way I turn, there seem to be an enormous bill in front of me..
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
5:48 pm
February 24, 2010
Offline
Bill1978 said
I am hanging out for the George biography to be published. Already made space for it on my Tudor shelf.
Quick question: What would be the best book to purchase on Henry VIII? Not that I should really be spending any more money.
<br /
I have a few:
Henry VIII by John Matusiak
1536 by Susannah Lipscomb
The last Days of Henry VIII, by Robert Hutchinson
Henry, Virtuous Prince by David Starkey
Henry VIII by Alison Weir
The reign of Henry VIII, Personalities and Politics, by David Starkey
The Reformation Experience, by Eric Ives. It is about the reformation throughout Europe, but there are chapters that deal with England, Henry, Edward, Mary and Elizabeth.
