» » Richard III (Routledge Historical Biographies)

eBook Richard III (Routledge Historical Biographies) epub

by David Hipshon

eBook Richard III (Routledge Historical Biographies) epub
  • ISBN: 0415462800
  • Author: David Hipshon
  • Genre: Biographies
  • Subcategory: Historical
  • Language: English
  • Publisher: Routledge (December 17, 2010)
  • Pages: 304 pages
  • ePUB size: 1891 kb
  • FB2 size 1989 kb
  • Formats docx mobi lrf doc

3. Description this book Despite reigning for only a relatively short period of time, Richard III is one of England’s most controversial monarchs. co/q2fvB if you want to download this book OR. Recommended. 100 Courses and Counting: David Rivers on Elearning.

Routledge Historical Biographies. Richard III. David Hipshon.

Great deals on one book or all books in the series. Routledge Historical Biographies. Authors: Peter J. Ling, Michael Lynch, Michael A. Mullett, Paula Bartley, Judith M. Richards. Related Series: Osprey Essential Histories. The Routledge Historical Biographies book series by multiple authors includes books Bismarck, Mao, LOUIS XIV, and several more.

This new biography takes a nuanced view both of Richard III's reign and of the controversies surrounding it, exploring them in the wider context of the period. Defining Richard's character as central to the analysis of his actions, David Hipshon emphasises the need to separate the man himself from the caricature that has so often been painted.

Richard Carr’s political biography of Charlie Chaplin draws on a wide variety of. .Series: Routledge Historical Biographies.

Richard Carr’s political biography of Charlie Chaplin draws on a wide variety of archival sources and provides an insightful, nuanced analysis of Chaplin’s evolving political views in the context of his times. His discussion of Chaplin’s interactions with British politicians and artists (and the British response to Chaplin) is especially illuminating, providing an important contribution to our understanding of the complex man and artist who created the Tramp. He has also co-authored the books Alice in Westminster: The Political Life of Alice Bacon (2016) and The Global 1920s (2016).

Richard III. (Routledge Historical Biographies).

Written by experts in their fields they are designed to help students either starting out on a course, or revising before exams. Far from being dry, academic texts however, they are also perfect, affordable books for the history buff.

This new biography takes a nuanced view both of Richard III's reign and of the controversies surrounding it, exploring . Defining Richard's character as central to the analysis of his actions, David Hipshon emphasises the need to separate the man himself from the caricature that has so often been painted

The book is organised chronologically, beginning in 1600 and covering Charles’ .

The book is organised chronologically, beginning in 1600 and covering Charles’ early. Isabella d’Este: A Renaissance Princess Thomas Cranmer. Susan Wabuda July 21, 2017. Richard Carr’s Charlie Chaplin places politics at the centre of the filmmaker’s life as it looks beyond Chaplin’s role as a comedic figure to his constant political engagement both on and off the screen. Stalin: From the Caucasus to the Kremlin.

Items related to Richard III (Routledge Historical Biographies). 1. Hipshon, David. Published by Routledge. ISBN 10: 0415462800 ISBN 13: 9780415462808. Hipshon, David Richard III (Routledge Historical Biographies). ISBN 13: 9780415462808.

Richard Hodges OBE, FSA (born 29 September 1952) is a British archaeologist and president of The American University of Rome

Richard Hodges OBE, FSA (born 29 September 1952) is a British archaeologist and president of The American University of Rome. A former professor and director of the Institute of World Archaeology at the University of East Anglia (1996–2007), Hodges is also the former Williams Director of the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology in Philadelphia (October 2007- 2012)

Despite reigning for only a relatively short period of time, Richard III is one of England’s most controversial monarchs. His life and rule has inspired a huge amount of literature, not least Shakespeare’s great play, and controversy still surrounds his seizure of the throne in 1485, the mystery of the disappearance of the Princes in the Tower, and his defeat and death at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485.

This new biography takes a nuanced view both of Richard III’s reign and of the controversies surrounding it, exploring them in the wider context of the period. Defining Richard’s character as central to the analysis of his actions, David Hipshon emphasises the need to separate the man himself from the caricature that has so often been painted.

Incorporating new research and previously unpublished material, this book is a must-read for all those interested both in Richard III as king, and in the development of the English monarchy and society at the end of the medieval era and the beginning of the early modern period.

Comments: (3)
I believe this to be the most impartial biography written to date. Granted, I haven't read them all.
David Hipshon rescues Richard III from the Tudor fabrications as well as the romanticized view of some overly enthusiastic Ricardians. I admit to being completely in sympathy with the Richard III Society, but the view I most see from their camp is not entirely human. Richard III was no saint. Neither was he a monster. He was a man in a difficult situation that we, from this distance, are incapable of judging. So many events are so shrouded in mystery that they cannot be uncovered to the light of day. David Hipshon does a credible job of stating facts and then theorizing based on those facts. No doubt he is closely correct in some, far off base in others. No one can know for certain. I believe if it weren't for the mystery of what happened to princes in the tower, there wouldn't be so much passion invested in the controversy.
I seem to have fallen into my own trap of not just reviewing the book, but stating my own beliefs. Oh, well.
Dr Hipshon is a fine historian if a bit timid regarding his subject. I truly suspect that the author has come to some intriguing conclusions, in the privacy of his own research and analysis, but does not dare put them to paper in the fullness of his abilities. Now why, you might ask, would a reputable historian do this? One who has obviously labored long and hard and appears to have a pronounced measure of integrity and energy with which to approach this quagmire afresh? (ie. the War of the Roses, WOTR)

The easy answer is that traditional academic biases (see his excellent closing chapter, "Posthumous Reputation") would never permit even a microscopic chance that Richard III was anything but the Lord Voldemort of the 15th century (hmmm, and the sour Henry Tudor a poor substitute for the engaging, personally courageous Harry Potter to boot

The more complicated answer is that Dr Hipshon is attempting to take the middle ground on both the conflict known as WOTR as well as Richard III. The author, who writes in a strong, clear manner, much appreciated by this reviewer, is often at pains to exonerate this man - and then, in the next breath, to take it all back - suddenly aware that the "experts who matter" might construe this effort as hedging by him - and he will could be smeared as - gasp, a Ricardian! (See pg.235 for a fine example of this scholarly intolerance and the mischief it has caused).

This reader would ask that the author just go ahead, actually say what he really thinks, share what he has learned after so many years of studying this man, his family, and his culture - just ignore the elitists, or better yet, call them out for what anyone familiar with the material will tell you is a numbing excess of hypocrisy.

From the first planted rumors and gossip (which today we call "disinformation") in the summer of 1483 to this most recent biography the king known as Richard III has had his life and career so completely entangled with known lies that it has been blown out of proportion - to the point where he would be unable to recognize `himself' or his companions and adversaries as described by Vergil, More, Shakespeare, Gairdner, Ross, Hicks, Weir, Rouse, Seward, et al, (comments about Mancini and Commines later, as they are special cases).

This middle road, implying neutrality, is not an unwelcome one and a reader must not criticize an author for the book that they DID NOT write; Dr Hipshon has taken us through the motions of a biography that will pass the "experts" censors and yet allow us, the readers, to feel comfortable enough to question these self-appointed experts.
This is not a small accomplishment. By leading the reader with a careful hand, providing enough back-story to flesh out many of the details that the general reader would need he also is very cautious with how BOTH sides of the debate would read his tidy summaries of various figures (from Richard II and Bolingbroke to Richard duke of York and Henry VI) as well as key "moments" all students of the WOTR are going to dissect with a vengeance for proof that he has not missed any of the "trigger" details.

For the experienced WOTR/RIII reader there is a fair amount of what I would call necessary "retread" - information that conforms to the official stereotype. For example, while Dr Hipshon does acknowledge the pet idea that Richard of York, the father, greatly influenced Richard the son (despite York's death at Wakefield when Richard was eight years old), he is at his best when he provides a far more complete explanation for some of these instances that historians use to claim RdY and RdG are virtually interchangeable in their ambition and `well deserved' fate.
One example in particular can stand for the many and involves the local politics of the Harrington family and their feud with Lord Stanley (pgs 72-73). The feud unfortunately is dependent upon the readers' knowledge of property rights, inheritance versus royal grants and the use and abuse of ward-ships to gain any of the above for what otherwise would be all but impossible even to the nobility. It may be one reason why so many other historians just slide over a situation like the Harrington connections to the House of York.

Hipshon takes it on directly and to his credit it serves to correct the gross deceptions found in Michael Hicks' mangling of this family and their feud as it involved Richard duke of Gloucester. I will say "mangling" to be kind. Hicks is a "disciple of Charles Ross" (p.240) yet I would suggest Hicks goes quite beyond that musty academic, indeed, he is at pains to both misrepresent information and omit information that would expose his own manipulation of details. Hipshon has done scholarship a favor by putting to rights this one instructive example of patronage as it existed and would continue to exist long after Richard's death in 1485.

Dr Hipshon gives every impression in this biography that he wishes for all parties to calm down, put those swords back in their scabbards, and try to remember the pursuit of truth trumps even academic elitism and preferences. At times he comes so close to doing just this that I found myself waiting for the next sentence to be one that would identify this hypocrisy which remains steadfast - often the result of the entrenched damage of manipulating information about Richard and the Tudors.

For example, recent authors Ann Wroe, Annette Carson, John Ashdown-Hill, Peter Hammond, Christine Weightman, David Baldwin and Peter Hancock have done stunning new research, re-evaluations of the known facts, reconsidering the stereotype from a variety of perspectives. To Dr Hipshon: build on their foundations, and if Hicks et al are incapable of seeing the hypocrisy which prevents them from asking the hard questions then so be it, they can continue to spend their days enraptured by the glories of the Showtime serial fantasy called the Tudors; or retire.
Every historian has to decide what to leave out as much as what to put in, and while this may not be the result of intentional manipulation of information in the case of R3 and WOTR it causes the same damage as if it were intended. And that is because all information must pass through the Tudor prism. As no one from the contemporary chronicles or commentaries were personally in the circle of Richard much less one of his own council, it is not surprising that highly suspect reports from Mancini and Commines has managed to suit the academic.

In April 1483 there are multiple factions that wanted to be served, to triumph, to disrupt this unexpected change in power. Some smears would be put in play by those still smarting Lancastrians, some would be the work of the Beaufort/Morton faction, still others by the dowager Queen's Woodville family and servants, yet others by the French court as it was still led by Louis XI, who had just months before ruptured his long standing Treaty with Edward IV as well as reneged on the arrangement that would have had his son, the Dauphin Charles (VIII) marry Edward's eldest daughter, Elizabeth of York.
None of these separate factions are seen for their singular efforts to achieve their own specific goals, instead, as usual we are served dominant Tudor perspective, which in a very short time became the royal and absolute perspective. And, as usual, Winston Churchill said it best, "History will be kind to me, because ... I intend to write the history."

What galls me about the entire WOTR and R3 debate(s) is the hypocrisy that may well be born of complicity or complacency.
For example, how many know that the "official" view of Richard was initiated by the Woodville then Beaufort/Morton then Tudor then French factions during that short two year tenure as king? And, for all future historians and memoir writers, the rules were established by Henry 7 the moment he pre-dated his reign to August 21st, making all parties on the side of R3 guilty of treason against Henry! Adding to that unique legal deceit Tudor also had ALL of them excommunicated via his manipulation of the Pope. Historians from Bernard, Vergil, the Crowland Chronicle, More, Hall, to the foreigners such as Mancini and Commines, didn't have to revise anything, the template had been given to them from summer 1483 onward, Henry and Beaufort did it for them; all they had to do was follow the rumor and gossip and state it as fact, much like Tudor executing men for fighting for that usurping non-king Richard instead of fighting for the usurping but `real' non-king: himself!

Another area of concern is what to do with Dominic Mancini and Philippe de Commines, two foreigners who have managed to remain supreme "authorities" when they should be, at best, curiosities of their age. To "use" them without a prerequisite context is irresponsible for any historian, for Hipshon it may have been drifting too far afield?

This context does require some background in the French history - and their highly effective art of political manipulation - a systematic approach to "government" which was well known and utilized by Beaufort/Morton and Tudor. Philippe de Commines is so encumbered with baggage that the kindest thing one can say about him is that loyalty, principled virtue, and trustworthiness was never on his resume so don't expect any. An adventurer with a facility for languages, Commines adored the sheer nerve of his second master, the French King Louis XI, exulting in the French king's ability to run rings around Edward IV in political strategy - structured as it was on duplicity, misinformation, deception and an endless rumor mill to undermine Edward and then Richard.

For those who think the Tudor machine of spies was of their own making one only has to look at the French, who employed spies and agents of all description: clerics, physicians, astrologers, `adventurers,' scholars, diplomats, couriers, exiles playing a double game. Tudor himself spoke French due to exile and then by choice. Once Louis XI broke the Treaty he had had with Edward IV late1482 all manner of "visitors" would be employed to gauge the response of Edward and his most prominent military commander, Richard duke of Gloucester.

His early and sudden death only intensified the need for intel, smokescreens of rumor, and some kind of feel for what a regency under Edward V would look like. Whatever Edward or Richard thought they did to counter the mischief of wily Louis it nevertheless appears that both brothers were never better than a day short and a dollar late where mis- and dis-information was concerned.

Some years after these events when the Archbishop of Vienne (Angelo Cato) presumed upon de Commines to write his Memoirs, for his own projected "Life of King Louis XI" - he had just been pardoned in 1489 for offenses to Charles VIII, and was still writing as late as 1495. It is a curious thing that Commines, who was himself guilty of plotting to overthrow the regency government of the young Charles VIII (son of Louis XI) in favor of an older, more mature family branch (Louis II of Orleans, cousin to Charles VIII), still has the perceived credibility today to be held as a witness to anything Richard of Gloucester did. In several places he changes his mind as to who and when and if the Princes were murdered.

It is worthwhile, however, to read some version of Commines, as the reader will see for themselves that his information is usually the result of what he heard from, yes, Henry Tudor while exiled in France. Commines did not know Richard or anyone close to him while in London much less among his Northern court, but he did remember him as a young man during the stalled then abandoned invasion of France by Edward IV and virtually every Englishman who could walk.
Louis XI, being not a marital king nor wishing to suffer the depredations of a resumption of the Hundred Years War dangled enormous pensions and tribute money to Edward and his nobles. He promised his Dauphin would marry Edward's daughter. Edward was overjoyed at his success and it was only Richard, age 22, who refused the tribute money and was among a few who would not attend the historic signing of the Treaty.

His truculence against the French pensions did not cost him any of Edward's regard but it is worth noting that the French most certainly did remember.

And that brings us to the other much vaunted "authority," the Italian cleric, Dominic Mancini. Does anyone really think Mancini, a would-be court poet, was sent by the Archbishop of Vienne, Angelo Cato, just to "visit" London in early 1483 - that he wasn't there to intercept, much like a bottom feeder, anything Cato's in-place network of informants and those tasked to spread unrest and rumor had to offer?

As the Augustinian friar did not know any English, or at best, a very little, one might ask why Cato had any hope that the dear man would be able to understand or report on anything in the court of France's great enemy.
As a key councilor to the king Cato would have put out a heavy press of agents into the field in order to gauge any possible repercussions of that broken Treaty (Edward had promised to renew war with France over this insult), and the only Englishman that the French would have been seriously concerned with was Richard, who had become E4's military campaigner in his stead.

Mancini's little report, written while he stayed in Cato's household, was finished in December 1483 at Beaugency, just months after Louis's own death in August. His young heir, Charles VII, was in court (Nov 9-22) nearby and his Chancellor (Guillaume de Rochefort at the Estates-General in Tours in January 1484) put it to immediate use and accused R3 of regicide alongside another councilor who offered a catalogue of murdered English monarchs. Propaganda aside, it was a spectacle of nationalistic gloating, an example of their own enlightened monarchy and it certainly provided an excuse to support Tudor once he lost Brittany's assistance to Richard III.

The irony is that within a scant two years Commines and numerous other "civilized" French nobles were busy trying to eliminate both the regent and the young Charles VIII from his throne in order to put their man there, Louis II of Orleans. The revolt led to the unintended loss of Brittany's autonomy, who were incorporated into the official borders of France. And, what of Commines? He was caught, and imprisoned in an iron cage for some years. Until Cato and a pardon found him in retreat at his estates where he dabbled with writing his Memoirs, again, for Cato.

And Mancini? Sad to say, the good man did not go down in history for his poetry, indeed, after 1494 he disappears from all record, he never achieved a court position nor as anything else. It is thought he was dead by 1514 and his report to Cato completely forgotten until it was uncovered in the 1930's.

To wrap this up, Hipshon correctly recognizes that elite academia treats history as if it is their private fiefdom, and it has done much harm, and not just to R3 - but to anyone caught poaching on their preserve. They will be marginalized as "amateurish" or suspiciously "romantic." Why these same academic misogynists aren't as offended by the hours of film and rivers of ink spent on H8I's amorous fun is a question only they can answer. Oh, I know, he was just so flirty and cheeky, so adorable and even if a couple wives had to be deliciously executed, well, he was a Tudor and they are just better than the rest of us. The grant money will always flow in a deluge for anything that turns the Tudor sow's ear into a silk purse.

And what of the hypocrisy of the writers who see "divine justice" when R 3 loses his heir, and then his wife a scant 11 months later, should we not then also hear endless fire-breathing recrimination about the obvious crimes committed by H 7 when he too loses his heir just as suddenly, and then just as quickly loses his wife 10 months later? (See Edward of Warwick, judiciously murdered to eliminate the claimant to the throne that most upset the parents of Katherine of Aragon before they would allow her marriage to Arthur Tudor).

What to say about the years of abuse that young man suffered in the Tower, and placed in such extreme isolation that two years after Bosworth a bizarre `pretender' such as Lambert Simnel could be taken as the real Edward of Warwick! By the time of his execution the long years of neglect had apparently reduced him to a mere simpleton, certainly incapable of plotting or leading or possibly even understanding the concept of "escape."

What of R3's rumored plans to marry his niece - when no one seems to recall that H7 suggested in a letter, which is extant, to Isabella of Spain that since he was now a widower he could marry his son's wife, her daughter, the widow of said Prince Arthur? That way none of her dowry need be returned, the alliance survives, all is good in the happy fantasy world of Tudor. Isabella was not amused.

And, with the "pretenders" Lambert Simnel, who cropped up in 1487, and then with Perkin Warbeck - why didn't H7expose either of them to the E4's daughters, including his own wife, at his own court, to prove without any doubt by anyone that they were in fact not their cousin Warwick nor brother Ricahrd of York?

And why won't the authorities allow modern forensic science to inspect the bones in the urn? Are they afraid it will show that not only are they not related but female? Or, that they date from the Roman or Celtic eras? Are they afraid it will be the sad remains of Warbeck and Warwick, and heaven knows how many others who went into the tower on their watch and never left?

On the base of this strong effort I would love to see Hipshon rectify many of the under-served personages of the period, and IN the context of their families, their culture, the choices made for them or about them; and, begin with that most pathetic of all victims, Edward of Warwick (1475-1499). This could be done as a family biography of Edward, his father, George duke of Clarence, and his older sister Margaret countess Salisbury and I think would greatly serve to provide an opportunity to reconsider what has been written about George. A more pat, one-dimensional account of a human life such as George duke of Clarence has no equal in the WOTR, I think Dr Hipshon could well resolve this oversight.

Dr Hipshon has done more good than harm and more positive things for study on the WOTR as well as R3 that I recommend this biography with much enthusiasm.
It would be quite a task to write a review more thorough or thoughtful than the one Beth Williams has written. I concur with her completely, especially regarding Hipshon's stance on the matter of the princes. I've read other works by Hipshon and he is a careful historian. This biography of Richard III is in a like vein, measured and objective, and the chapter on the historiography of Richard is outstanding. This is a worthwhile book for serious historians as well as others who are interested in the War of Roses in general and Richard III in particular.
eBooks Related to Richard III (Routledge Historical Biographies)
Contacts | Privacy Policy | DMCA
All rights reserved.
lycee-pablo-picasso.fr © 2016-2020