![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
gilda_elise"As Tudors go, Elizabeth of York is relatively unknown. Yet through her marriage to Henry VII she became the mother of the dynasty, with her children including a King of England (Henry VIII) and Queens of Scotland (Margaret) and France (Mary Rose), and her direct descendants including three Tudor monarchs, two executed queens and, ultimately, the Stuart royal family."
Apparently not as important, she was also the daughter of Edward IV, and niece to Richard III. But her Yorkist connections are given short shrift, her allegiances to that house seemingly nonexistent. The book is advertised as "The true story of the white princess," but I found that the author used her imagination to fill in the gaps just as much as Philippa Gregory did, but at least Gregory calls her book a novel.
I knew ahead of time that a lot of the book would have to be filled with information about Elizabeth's contemporaries; we just don't know enough about the woman to fill a book. So I wasn't put off with the first chapter being more a short history of the Wars of the Roses and the its major players. What I did find disturbing was how much the author's bias shows through. Things that we can't know, one way or the other, are written as fact, especially when it comes to exonerating Elizabeth's, and her mother's, behavior.
The same can't be said for Licence's take on Richard III. If something bad was said about him, well, it was probably true. Because there were rumors, it must be fact that he was trying to dump his dying wife—who, along with her son Licence claims were sickly, no matter that there's no proof of that. And, of course, the same old story about the "princes in the tower." No one can say for sure what happened to them, but that doesn't stop Licence.
The author goes in the opposite direction when it comes to Henry VI. No matter that more than once contemporary source has proclaimed his stinginess, because he didn't have his family in rags somehow that's proof that he wasn't that way at all. The list goes on.
I was hoping for a balanced approach, with perhaps some new information regarding Elizabeth of York. That was not to be. Instead, we're subjected to yet another writer trying to pass off her opinion as fact.
Apparently not as important, she was also the daughter of Edward IV, and niece to Richard III. But her Yorkist connections are given short shrift, her allegiances to that house seemingly nonexistent. The book is advertised as "The true story of the white princess," but I found that the author used her imagination to fill in the gaps just as much as Philippa Gregory did, but at least Gregory calls her book a novel.
I knew ahead of time that a lot of the book would have to be filled with information about Elizabeth's contemporaries; we just don't know enough about the woman to fill a book. So I wasn't put off with the first chapter being more a short history of the Wars of the Roses and the its major players. What I did find disturbing was how much the author's bias shows through. Things that we can't know, one way or the other, are written as fact, especially when it comes to exonerating Elizabeth's, and her mother's, behavior.
The same can't be said for Licence's take on Richard III. If something bad was said about him, well, it was probably true. Because there were rumors, it must be fact that he was trying to dump his dying wife—who, along with her son Licence claims were sickly, no matter that there's no proof of that. And, of course, the same old story about the "princes in the tower." No one can say for sure what happened to them, but that doesn't stop Licence.
The author goes in the opposite direction when it comes to Henry VI. No matter that more than once contemporary source has proclaimed his stinginess, because he didn't have his family in rags somehow that's proof that he wasn't that way at all. The list goes on.
I was hoping for a balanced approach, with perhaps some new information regarding Elizabeth of York. That was not to be. Instead, we're subjected to yet another writer trying to pass off her opinion as fact.
