The Three Richards, Nigel Saul
Many and many a year ago, I picked up a biography of Richard II at the library and never got around to reading it. Then, I went to visit Isanah, and we watched Sparkly King Jesus: The Musical the BBC's production of Richard II, and I wanted to find out the facts as opposed to Shakespeare's version of history, which is not always... the most accurate thing ever. The Three Richards, a collective biography of the Richards I, II, and III was the only biography of Richard II I could locate in any way, so I read it!
OH NIGEL SAUL.
To be fair, his information on Richard II seemed accurate and unbiased, and I got a brief overview of his reign and some information on his various interests. I'm still gonna read the other biography I found, but this is a good start, I think, and it was definitely a good read.
OKAY BUT AS FOR THE OTHER RICHARDS. Nigel Saul is weirdly biased and it shows a lot. For example, he seems to think that Richard I was a 100% successful no-errors king, and though he says he's judging him by the standards of the time when Richard ruled, he still seems awfully hero-worshippy of him. Richard III he hates, just flat-out dislikes, and it's really, really clear.
Saul also makes statements that are either unprovable given the facts he's stated or just... weird? He mentioned at one point that a chronicle proved that criticism of Richard III began during the king's lifetime, because it was written by a royal insider shortly after the Battle of Bosworth Field. When... that court insider would certainly not be trying to prove to the new king of England that he'd never really supported the usurping old king, definitely not, absolutely not him... He also jumps to a lot of conclusions about the piety of various kings, or speculates on them and then later states those same speculations as fact; eg Richard III possibly had a more militant and moral form of religious piety than his brother vs., two chapters later, Richard III's reasons for staying in power stemmed from his militant and moral form of religious piety.
Finally, the book just sort of trails off without a conclusion.
It's an interesting concept for a book, but Saul could've done much, much better. C-.
Unrelatedly, how come no one ever brings up that Richard III might have usurped the throne because child kings of England have never worked out well in the past? Granted, Edward III did a decent job, and Henry III's problems were more because his father fucked up beyond all belief, but the two child kings Richard III would've been familiar with were basically responsible for the Wars of the Roses...
This entry is crossposted at http://bookblather.dreamwidth.org/348748.html. Please comment over there if possible.
OH NIGEL SAUL.
To be fair, his information on Richard II seemed accurate and unbiased, and I got a brief overview of his reign and some information on his various interests. I'm still gonna read the other biography I found, but this is a good start, I think, and it was definitely a good read.
OKAY BUT AS FOR THE OTHER RICHARDS. Nigel Saul is weirdly biased and it shows a lot. For example, he seems to think that Richard I was a 100% successful no-errors king, and though he says he's judging him by the standards of the time when Richard ruled, he still seems awfully hero-worshippy of him. Richard III he hates, just flat-out dislikes, and it's really, really clear.
Saul also makes statements that are either unprovable given the facts he's stated or just... weird? He mentioned at one point that a chronicle proved that criticism of Richard III began during the king's lifetime, because it was written by a royal insider shortly after the Battle of Bosworth Field. When... that court insider would certainly not be trying to prove to the new king of England that he'd never really supported the usurping old king, definitely not, absolutely not him... He also jumps to a lot of conclusions about the piety of various kings, or speculates on them and then later states those same speculations as fact; eg Richard III possibly had a more militant and moral form of religious piety than his brother vs., two chapters later, Richard III's reasons for staying in power stemmed from his militant and moral form of religious piety.
Finally, the book just sort of trails off without a conclusion.
It's an interesting concept for a book, but Saul could've done much, much better. C-.
Unrelatedly, how come no one ever brings up that Richard III might have usurped the throne because child kings of England have never worked out well in the past? Granted, Edward III did a decent job, and Henry III's problems were more because his father fucked up beyond all belief, but the two child kings Richard III would've been familiar with were basically responsible for the Wars of the Roses...
This entry is crossposted at http://bookblather.dreamwidth.org/348748.html. Please comment over there if possible.