Desmond Seward Wars of the Roses etc.
CharlasFolio Society Devotees
Únete a LibraryThing para publicar.
1devilsisland
I was interested in the trilogy Folio produced on the Wars of the Roses but I figured asking the English contingent here what they thought first would be a good idea. I know the Richard III was not embraced by many readers.
I also noticed no one but myself has shown any interest in The Last White Rose which is in the sale.
Any feedback would be appreciated
Thanks
I also noticed no one but myself has shown any interest in The Last White Rose which is in the sale.
Any feedback would be appreciated
Thanks
2NLNils
I am interested in The Last White Rose and Richard III. I already own The Monks of War and The War of The Roses. Haven’t read either one yet, but the reason for not buying the remaining two is simple: not enough of a discount and no discount. There were just too many good deals to be had. I’m hoping for them to be discounted deeper in the Summer Sale, along with the Christopher Hill books.
3devilsisland
>2 NLNils:
Exact same here, I got War of the Roses NEW on ebay delivered for $20. I knew that was a great deal and got Monks of War for $20 also.
It seems Richard III is the 2nd part though, between that one and Last White, another $100+ must be spent. I need some affirmation that these books are fantastic before I go down that road.
Exact same here, I got War of the Roses NEW on ebay delivered for $20. I knew that was a great deal and got Monks of War for $20 also.
It seems Richard III is the 2nd part though, between that one and Last White, another $100+ must be spent. I need some affirmation that these books are fantastic before I go down that road.
4folio_books
>3 devilsisland: I need some affirmation that these books are fantastic before I go down that road.
I'm probably in a very small minority here, outnumbered by the Desmond Seward fanboys, but I personally find him opinionated and unreliable.
I'm probably in a very small minority here, outnumbered by the Desmond Seward fanboys, but I personally find him opinionated and unreliable.
5Willoyd
>4 folio_books:
Well if you are in a very small minority, it's at least a minority of two, as I completely agree with you.
Well if you are in a very small minority, it's at least a minority of two, as I completely agree with you.
6Rembetis
>3 devilsisland: I think it's impossible for anyone to affirm that you will find the Seward books 'fantastic', as one man's meat is another man's poison - we all have different tastes (thank goodness). You might try reading the four page extract from 'Richard III' on the Folio Society's website to see if Seward is for you.
My own opinion is that all three Seward books are excellent, and I read all three quickly, finding them page turners.
>4 folio_books: As no one has stepped in to support Seward, I thought I would give my tuppence worth. I don't agree that Seward is opinionated and unreliable. I think he reaches balanced and sensible conclusions after sifting through the available contemporary evidence. His views are also shared by many other historians (outside of the historians in the Richard III Society).
My own opinion is that all three Seward books are excellent, and I read all three quickly, finding them page turners.
>4 folio_books: As no one has stepped in to support Seward, I thought I would give my tuppence worth. I don't agree that Seward is opinionated and unreliable. I think he reaches balanced and sensible conclusions after sifting through the available contemporary evidence. His views are also shared by many other historians (outside of the historians in the Richard III Society).
7NLNils
>6 Rembetis: Thank you for your input! You wrote that you read all three, Folio published four Seward books (The Monks of War, The Wars of The Roses, The Last White Rose and Richard III: England's Black Legend) in total. Which one did you skip?
10kdweber
I've got all four Desmond Seward books but only purchased one from the FS as the others could be found much cheaper on the secondhand market. I paid $14 including shipping for my copy of The Monks of War.
11Willoyd
>6 Rembetis:
I don't agree that Seward is opinionated and unreliable. I think he reaches balanced and sensible conclusions after sifting through the available contemporary evidence.
It is some time since I read Desmond Seward's book on Richard III, so I hesitate to get too involved in an in-depth discussion on it, but looking at the notes I took at the time, he states in the first line of his introduction that this is a highly personal account, and that's what it read like to me. I felt that he was heavily over-reliant on Sir Thomas More's account and on his belief in its accuracy/truthfulness, and always took the most negative view of any other evidence - not the most balanced approach IMO. Later in the introduction he explains that he originally believed in Richard III's innocence, and for me it was a bit like watching a religious convert zealously trying to convince others of his belief in and the rightness of, his new faith.
I don't agree that Seward is opinionated and unreliable. I think he reaches balanced and sensible conclusions after sifting through the available contemporary evidence.
It is some time since I read Desmond Seward's book on Richard III, so I hesitate to get too involved in an in-depth discussion on it, but looking at the notes I took at the time, he states in the first line of his introduction that this is a highly personal account, and that's what it read like to me. I felt that he was heavily over-reliant on Sir Thomas More's account and on his belief in its accuracy/truthfulness, and always took the most negative view of any other evidence - not the most balanced approach IMO. Later in the introduction he explains that he originally believed in Richard III's innocence, and for me it was a bit like watching a religious convert zealously trying to convince others of his belief in and the rightness of, his new faith.
12AnnieMod
>11 Willoyd:
Richard III is one of those topics that seems to be making otherwise reliable historians go a bit crazy - most of them are either scared to go where the evidence leads or makes up their mind and then try to sell everyone on it. I would not judge Seward by that book alone. He is much better when writing on pretty much any other topic.
Richard III is one of those topics that seems to be making otherwise reliable historians go a bit crazy - most of them are either scared to go where the evidence leads or makes up their mind and then try to sell everyone on it. I would not judge Seward by that book alone. He is much better when writing on pretty much any other topic.
13Rembetis
>11 Willoyd: The 2014 edition of Seward's book on Richard III, produced by Folio, is an updated version "in view of recent discoveries", and the introduction no longer starts in the way you describe. Seward lists two pages of contemporary references in his bibliography. He accepts the limitations of More's evidence, as he says More's history 'has many faults' and that More was:
'writing an epic as well as history and strove for dramatic effects, yet as a man famous for plain dealing and love of truth - he paid for it with his life - it is impossible to dismiss his account'.
I have read, over the years, the attempts to completely discredit More's work, which to my mind have been pretty desperate on the whole. I am not an historical expert, and I note the faults in the work, but the idea of Thomas More being a mere propagandist is laughable.
I ought to say, I am no 'fanboy' of the Tudors, enjoyed the Josephine Tey fiction and the comical exaggerations of Shakespeare, accept Henry Tudor had a very tenuous claim on the throne, that the Tudor's were violent and ruthless, and that they would have blackened Richard's name as far as they possibly could to deflect from their own actions.
However, I cannot understand how some historians so readily completely discard all the contemporary evidence such as More, Polydore Vergil, Mancini's eyewitness description (written in 1483, two years before Richard was killed), or the Croyland Chronicles.
I note (with some irony) that, prior to Richard's skeleton being found, revisonist historians and Richard III supporters argued that there was no evidence whatsoever that Richard had a spinal deformity - it was invented by propagandists. The scoloisis in Richard's back, however, proved the contemporary sources right.
>12 AnnieMod: The problem is that the available contemporary evidence itself is so hotly contested. And I don't think Seward went a bit crazy when writing about Richard III - far from it!
'writing an epic as well as history and strove for dramatic effects, yet as a man famous for plain dealing and love of truth - he paid for it with his life - it is impossible to dismiss his account'.
I have read, over the years, the attempts to completely discredit More's work, which to my mind have been pretty desperate on the whole. I am not an historical expert, and I note the faults in the work, but the idea of Thomas More being a mere propagandist is laughable.
I ought to say, I am no 'fanboy' of the Tudors, enjoyed the Josephine Tey fiction and the comical exaggerations of Shakespeare, accept Henry Tudor had a very tenuous claim on the throne, that the Tudor's were violent and ruthless, and that they would have blackened Richard's name as far as they possibly could to deflect from their own actions.
However, I cannot understand how some historians so readily completely discard all the contemporary evidence such as More, Polydore Vergil, Mancini's eyewitness description (written in 1483, two years before Richard was killed), or the Croyland Chronicles.
I note (with some irony) that, prior to Richard's skeleton being found, revisonist historians and Richard III supporters argued that there was no evidence whatsoever that Richard had a spinal deformity - it was invented by propagandists. The scoloisis in Richard's back, however, proved the contemporary sources right.
>12 AnnieMod: The problem is that the available contemporary evidence itself is so hotly contested. And I don't think Seward went a bit crazy when writing about Richard III - far from it!
14Willoyd
>13 Rembetis:
That's interesting what you have to say about changes made in the more recent addition. Maybe this is a more balanced edition.
I wouldn't want to be seen as trying to dismiss More's account out of hand. Far from it, because like you I'm somewhat mystified by the willingness to discard contemporary evidence so readily. However, on the reading I had, I felt that in the edition I read, Seward swung too much the other way and wasn't sufficiently sceptical.
My own view, FWIW and in very general terms, is that Richard was on the balance of probability, likely to be responsible for the deaths of the princes. I just objected to Seward's fairly blatant attempt to make Richard III out to be completely black, everything taken as being a negative. Conversely, I also dislike others' fairly blatant attempts to whitewash him. It may well be that he was completely dastardly, or that he was the most wonderful king, and both would make great copy, but from what I've seen the truth, as so often, is probably somewhere in between.
On balance, as a layman relying largely on second-hand evidence, I get the impression he was a better ruler than his detractors would allow, who got to the top using nefarious means, more on the side of the end justifying the means than our modern day ethics allow, and allowing those enemies plenty of leverage to do him down, especially once defeated.
That's interesting what you have to say about changes made in the more recent addition. Maybe this is a more balanced edition.
I wouldn't want to be seen as trying to dismiss More's account out of hand. Far from it, because like you I'm somewhat mystified by the willingness to discard contemporary evidence so readily. However, on the reading I had, I felt that in the edition I read, Seward swung too much the other way and wasn't sufficiently sceptical.
My own view, FWIW and in very general terms, is that Richard was on the balance of probability, likely to be responsible for the deaths of the princes. I just objected to Seward's fairly blatant attempt to make Richard III out to be completely black, everything taken as being a negative. Conversely, I also dislike others' fairly blatant attempts to whitewash him. It may well be that he was completely dastardly, or that he was the most wonderful king, and both would make great copy, but from what I've seen the truth, as so often, is probably somewhere in between.
On balance, as a layman relying largely on second-hand evidence, I get the impression he was a better ruler than his detractors would allow, who got to the top using nefarious means, more on the side of the end justifying the means than our modern day ethics allow, and allowing those enemies plenty of leverage to do him down, especially once defeated.
15Rembetis
>14 Willoyd: I haven't read previous editions of Seward's 'Richard III' prior to the revised 2014 edition so can't say whether the 2014 edition is more balanced. It certainly seems a balanced evaluation of the available contemporary evidence and modern research to me.
I agree with you about the attempts to whitewash Richard. It is funny that the historians and members of the Richard III Society can't see how hypocritical they are. They accuse contemporary chroniclers of writing Tudor propaganda, whilst their mission, in their own words, is to 'reclaim the reputation of Richard III'. This critically assumes that Richard was innocent of the charges against him, and the evidence is subsequently analysed not on its own merits, but through that prism.
Whatever version of history one believes, Richard carried out some truly horrendous, brutal acts, even for that time, such as the swift execution of Lord Hastings without a trial. Richard also abysmally failed in his duty as Lord Protector to his brother's children. All ten children were declared bastards, Richard ascended the throne, and the two princes subsequently 'disappeared' under his watch - last seen two years before the end of his reign.
I agree with you about the attempts to whitewash Richard. It is funny that the historians and members of the Richard III Society can't see how hypocritical they are. They accuse contemporary chroniclers of writing Tudor propaganda, whilst their mission, in their own words, is to 'reclaim the reputation of Richard III'. This critically assumes that Richard was innocent of the charges against him, and the evidence is subsequently analysed not on its own merits, but through that prism.
Whatever version of history one believes, Richard carried out some truly horrendous, brutal acts, even for that time, such as the swift execution of Lord Hastings without a trial. Richard also abysmally failed in his duty as Lord Protector to his brother's children. All ten children were declared bastards, Richard ascended the throne, and the two princes subsequently 'disappeared' under his watch - last seen two years before the end of his reign.
16SF-72
Out of curiosity: Has Folio published any books 'by the other side' about Richard III / the War of the Roses, or are these three by Seward it? I vaguely remember reading something about a book that supported a positive view of Richard III, but I'm really not sure if I'm mixing something up there.
17NLNils
There are two counter books, one published in 1965:
Richard III, The Great Debate by Sir Thomas More and Hugh Walpole, edited with introductions by Paul Kendall, eight leaves of plates with contemporary portraits and etchings and an illuminated miniature from a medieval manuscript. Quarter black cloth, white cloth boards with a design in orange, black and gold, orange endleaves. Black and mottled grey slipcase. 21.9 x 14.3 cm. 244 pp.
And one in 2005:
Richard III by Paul Murray Kendall. Introduced by Roy Strong. Maps and genealogical tables by Reginald Piggott. 18 pages of colour plates. Bound in dark green cloth with a gilt coin design on cover. 574pp. 25x16cm.
Information from the All Books Published Wiki.
Relative prospectuses can be found here
Richard III, The Great Debate by Sir Thomas More and Hugh Walpole, edited with introductions by Paul Kendall, eight leaves of plates with contemporary portraits and etchings and an illuminated miniature from a medieval manuscript. Quarter black cloth, white cloth boards with a design in orange, black and gold, orange endleaves. Black and mottled grey slipcase. 21.9 x 14.3 cm. 244 pp.
And one in 2005:
Richard III by Paul Murray Kendall. Introduced by Roy Strong. Maps and genealogical tables by Reginald Piggott. 18 pages of colour plates. Bound in dark green cloth with a gilt coin design on cover. 574pp. 25x16cm.
Information from the All Books Published Wiki.
Relative prospectuses can be found here
19Willoyd
There is also Josephine Tey's The Daughter of Time, definitely from the other side to Seward.
21InVitrio
"My own view, FWIW and in very general terms, is that Richard was on the balance of probability, likely to be responsible for the deaths of the princes."
He certainly locked them up in the Tower having deposed Edward V from the throne based on a very tenuous legal argument, which nobody had previously raised, and having had Lord Hastings, one of Edward IV's most loyal servants, summarily executed after dragging him from a council meeting.
If Richard III did not have the princes executed, then they died of natural causes while in the Tower, which effectively still made it his responsibility. He could have ended the Tudor revolt early doors by producing a living prince...
He certainly locked them up in the Tower having deposed Edward V from the throne based on a very tenuous legal argument, which nobody had previously raised, and having had Lord Hastings, one of Edward IV's most loyal servants, summarily executed after dragging him from a council meeting.
If Richard III did not have the princes executed, then they died of natural causes while in the Tower, which effectively still made it his responsibility. He could have ended the Tudor revolt early doors by producing a living prince...
22LesMiserables
>21 InVitrio: based on a very tenuous legal argument,
You will find that that was the standard of the day with multiple precedents during the Hundred Years War.
You will find that that was the standard of the day with multiple precedents during the Hundred Years War.
