Reading List for the Wars of the Roses anyone?

[fallenstar]

Just got obsessed with the Wars of the Roses. I am wondering if anyone can give me a good reading list. I just read Seward's The Wars of the Roses, some said it's not too reliable in sources, the same comment for another book I just got from the library by Alison Weirs with the same title.

However, I did borrow The Wars of the Roses: a Concise History by Professor Charles Ross, who is said to be a good historian.

So...while I am reading Concise History, can anyone help me out with a reading list? I may be writing my Extended Essay on this. (those who knows about IB would know what I am talking about, it's just an essay on subjects you like).

[littlemissattitude]

I'm not sure I have any contribution to make for your reading list. I'll have to take a look around. However, I am a bit surprised to hear that Alison Weir is not considered to be reliable. I've read both "The Princes in the Tower" and "The Six Wives of Henry VIII", and they seemed to not be out of line with other information on those subjects.

[fallenstar]

Originally Posted by littlemissattitude

I'm not sure I have any contribution to make for your reading list. I'll have to take a look around. However, I am a bit surprised to hear that Alison Weir is not considered to be reliable. I've read both "The Princes in the Tower" and "The Six Wives of Henry VIII", and they seemed to not be out of line with other information on those subjects.

Of course, that's just some people's idea....I will still read Alison Weir (if I have time, it's quite thick and school is starting soon...but I just want some general idea for what to chooose to read when I do have time).

[LadyFel]

I've read The Princes in the Tower by Weir and I found her to be a bit too one-sided...

I sort of got the feeling she totally failed to take into account the fact that history really is written by the winners and that most of the material which people failed to hide really well pertaining to Richard III both before and during his reign was destroyed and he was given an extreme makeover...

Anyone who is willing to accept that Sir Thomas More wrote absolute truth about the events of those few years having written that Richard was 'two years in his mother's womb' and came out with teeth and a withered arm is just asking for tests of their mental capabilities...

[fallenstar]

Weir actually accepted Sir Thomas More completely?? Then she is a worst historian than I though. I mean I thought Seward was a bit too leaning over More, but by then I thought I might be a little bit biased (having read the Daughter of Time, a fiction which condemned Henry VI for the death of the Princes in the Towers). But you can't actually trust More completely...

[LadyFel]

I don't know if she accepted everything, she certainly never mentioned what I quoted above, but I've read a lot about that period, and I get the feeling she relies way too heavily on More and his contemporaries...Who, as they were writing during the reign of the man who deposed Richard and that man's son, obviously would have made every effort to stay in their good graces, especially considering Henry VIII's 'off with his head' policy of government...

I felt she didn't dig nearly deep enough, and although she mentions other theories which hold a lot more water, she then dismisses them almost out of hand by referring to More et al...

(I'm assuming you mean Henry VII was condemned for the murder in your book, the Princes never knew Henry VI, as he was also murdered when they were very young)...For a good fiction which offers a decent theory on the murder (so decent that I've become a firm believer), I reccomend 'The Sunne in Splendour' by Sharon Penman, which deals with the Wars of the Roses from the battle of Wakefield Green to Richard III's defeat...She really did her homework checking dates and places, so if she says a person was in Nottingham on September 4th 1478, he was

[fallenstar]

oops...yes that was a typo on my part, it was Henry VII...sorry, never too good with Roman Numerals.

ah..The Sun in Splendour...always loved that Arm of Edward IV's...I will read that book as soon as I finish with the Charles Ross book.

The same thing I felt with Seward's "The Wars of the Roses", they seemed to draw their only source from More and Vergil, both Tudor historians, and More served under John Morton the Bishop of Ely, who happened to be a devoted Lancastrian, though turned Yorkist.

[nixie]

Reading Sunne in Splendour at the moment.The more I read on Richard III the more I realise he's not the monster history painted him as.

[lea27]

One book I would recommend for the Wars of the Roses is J.R. Lander. Hope this helps. Its not fiction by the way.

[English Rose]

If you want good fiction about Wars of the Roses, try Anne Easter Smith's A Rose for the Crown. It's (mostly) historically accurate... it's a reconstruction of the life of the woman who is thought to have borne Richard's illegitimate children... one Katherine Haute, mentioned in household records. It's a long read but very worthwhile...

Now, while we're talking about it, and since my library privileges have been suspended and I have no money, will somebody please tell me what Susan Penman's theory about the princes in the tower is? I have yet to read The Sunne in Splendour, for the reasons mentioned above, but I REALLY want to know. My thanks to all of you, and I'm glad to be joining this forum!

[svalbard]

If I can remember correctly, she blames it on Buckingham.

[Melisende]

I personally, do not like Weir as an author of historical "fact" - her books, at times, tend to read more like "fiction" and in some cases, to those in the know, she has included "facts" which are blatantly "fiction". And yes, she is biased.

However, I do read her books to gain a balanced view - I believe in reading the good, the bad, and the downright atrocious. This helps to develop your own views.

(Don't get me started on her book on Isabella, wife of Edward II).