# You can't make up history like this **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [November 19, 2008, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-cant-make-up-history-like-this/473485 "2008-11-19T18:33:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-cant-make-up-history-like-this/473485/21 "2008-11-19T23:21:54Z")
> [@Mississippienne](#): > > General histories make me hinky, because so many of them are written by journalists and other amateur historians who don’t know how to properly research this time period. In general, stay away from anything by Alison Weir. My tastes tend to run towards the scholarly. Ditto. I’m in 100% agreement, including the comment on Alison Weir. She’s very popular, but I tried her volume on the _War of the Roses_ and was unimpressed. From time to time I’ll give a well-reviewed a popular history a try and I’m more often disappointed than not. > [@](#): > > _King Edward II_ by Roy Martin Haines, 2003. I haven’t read this one but it’s supposed to be good. > > _The Reign of Henry III_ by David Carpenter, 1996. A fantastic book about the most obscure Plantagenet king. Fill in your knowledge of the king between John and Edward I. Missed these two, I’ve actually been looking for a volume on Henry III ( and not incidentally English language works on Louis VIII and IX ). Have to check them out. > [@](#): > > _Edward I_ by Michael Prestwich, 1997. The definitive biography. Agreed - quite good and even-handedly deflates some of the traditional tendency to cast him as a military genius, which he wasn’t ( quite competent, yes - brilliant, no ). > [@](#): > > _King John: New Interpretations_ by S. D. Church, 1999. As the title suggests, an intriguing look at a much-maligned king. I’ve read Ralph Turner’s earlier 1994 volume on John. Do you know if Church is in significant disagreement with him on any particulars? For the OP re: English kings, most of the Yale University series on English monarchs are good places to start ( the Prestwich book above is one of them ). ETA: Ah, hell - I just looked it up and the Carpenter volume is going for $120.00 :eek:. Guess that one is going on the back burner. ---
**Author:** ![neutron\_star](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/51bf81/32.png) [@neutron\_star](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/neutron_star)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-cant-make-up-history-like-this/473485/22 "2008-11-19T23:25:36Z")
> [@Fish](#): > > Based on a Straight Dope recommendation I am reading Simon Schama’s _History of Britain_ trilogy. After getting about halfway through this thread, I skipped over to Amazon and bought the first volume of this. Interesting stuff! ---
**Author:** ![Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fish)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-cant-make-up-history-like-this/473485/23 "2008-11-19T23:40:36Z")
You can also find bits of the BBC special “A History of Britain” on YouTube. ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-cant-make-up-history-like-this/473485/24 "2008-11-20T00:07:29Z")
> [@Sonnenstrahl](#): > > My specialty is 16th and 17th-century history Bet, Kindchen, bet; morgen kommt der Schwede. Or should I just play “Rufty Tufty” or “Grimstock”? ---
**Author:** ![Mississippienne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d2c977/32.png) [@Mississippienne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mississippienne)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-cant-make-up-history-like-this/473485/25 "2008-11-20T00:22:57Z")
> [@Tamerlane](#): > > ETA: Ah, hell - I just looked it up and the Carpenter volume is going for $120.00 :eek:. Guess that one is going on the back burner. You can look at it on Google Books for nothing. Just type words into the search. ---
**Author:** ![Kolga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e56c9b/32.png) [@Kolga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kolga)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-cant-make-up-history-like-this/473485/26 "2008-11-20T01:41:00Z")
> [@neutron\_star](#): > > After getting about halfway through this thread, I skipped over to Amazon and bought the first volume of this. Interesting stuff! I went right to my library’s search engine, and reserved it. Thanks, Dopers, for feeding my book addiction. ---
**Author:** ![Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fish)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-cant-make-up-history-like-this/473485/27 "2008-11-20T21:26:28Z")
I’m up to Richard II, John of Gaunt, Henry Bolingbroke, the Peasants’ Revolt, and the Lords Appellant. It’s fascinating to me how the creation of Parliament was something forced upon the Kings over time, and how the Magna Carta was a declaration of the rights of _barons_ against the king’s absolute rule. Parliament had from the beginning an adversarial relationship with the Kings of England, sort of like the peoples’ veto. Parliament more or less _evolved_ from a small council of supervisors into a regulatory body in its own right. Amazing stuff! Wish me luck, I’m drawing close to the Wars of the Roses… ---
**Author:** ![Spavined\_Gelding](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/958977/32.png) [@Spavined\_Gelding](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spavined_Gelding)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-cant-make-up-history-like-this/473485/28 "2008-11-20T22:41:28Z")
Scorecard! Scorecard! Get ‘cher scorecard here. Can’t tell the players without a scorecard. What just drives me to distraction in the need to fight through all those convoluted genealogical tables at the back of the book. You start off with a nice clean House of This and House of That, but before you reel through two generations things are a tangled as a snarl of fishing line in a cheap spin-caster. If you are looking for a modern equivalent try looking at the Sicilian Mafia. A similar mind-set and ethos. It is true the old saw that the Royals got their’s the old fashion way – they stole it fair and square. ---
**Author:** ![Mississippienne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d2c977/32.png) [@Mississippienne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mississippienne)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2008, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-cant-make-up-history-like-this/473485/29 "2008-11-21T18:28:03Z")
> [@Tamerlane](#): > > Missed these two, I’ve actually been looking for a volume on Henry III ( and not incidentally English language works on Louis VIII and IX ). Have to check them out. Unfortunately, there’s a derth of English-language books on the Capetians. You might check out _Capetian Women_ by Kathleen Nolan, 2003, which has some interesting essays on early Capetian queens. ---
**Author:** ![Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fish)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2008, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-cant-make-up-history-like-this/473485/30 "2008-11-26T19:55:40Z")
Update: I’m up through Catherine of Aragon, Henry VIII and his flirtations with Anne Boleyn, and Charles V. Fascinating stuff. No wonder so much has been made of Henry VIII and his many mistresses. Schama’s book skips over the Wars of the Roses almost in their entirety, giving them only a passing mention. I know that Henry VIII’s divorce/annulment was _the_ major factor in the disintegration of relations between the crown and the church, so it merits the coverage, but were the Wars of the Roses really that … pointless? Could one really skip over them? ---
**Author:** ![Hypno-Toad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b2d939/32.png) [@Hypno-Toad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hypno-Toad)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2008, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-cant-make-up-history-like-this/473485/31 "2008-11-26T20:04:27Z")
> [@Fish](#): > > … but were the Wars of the Roses really that … pointless? Could one really skip over them? Well, if one is interested in results rather than processes one could just say that the Wars of the Roses resulted in Henry Tudor getting the throne and pick up the story from there. It may have been an editorial decision to leave out a truly confusing tale. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2008, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-cant-make-up-history-like-this/473485/32 "2008-11-26T20:53:17Z")
> [@KGS](#): > > That’s nothing. The history of [the princes in the tower](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princes_in_the_Tower) (Edward V of England, and his brother Richard of Shrewsbury) is especially heartbreaking – King Richard III imprisoned both boys in The Tower of London and they were never seen again, presumably murdered to eliminate Richard’s rivals to the throne.." Unlikely. Much more likely that Henry Tudor had them offed. RIII didn’t have much of a motive- he’d already had them declared illegitimate (and they really were, it seems). [http://www.r3.org/bookcase/misc/wigram01.html](http://www.r3.org/bookcase/misc/wigram01.html) But Henry had a huge motive- if he was legit, then they were, and they had a better claim. And, the odd thing is that Henry Tudor waited for a looong time to announce the Princes were dead- when you’d think one of the 1st things a man with a tenuous grip on the throne would do is announce that the King you just killed was a child-murderer. \*Motive: Henry’s Act of Parliament that repealed the Titulus Regius (and, therefore, the bastardy charges) made the boys’ deaths necessary; otherwise Prince Edward was the lawful king of England. \* ---
**Author:** ![Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fish)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2008, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-cant-make-up-history-like-this/473485/33 "2008-11-26T20:54:39Z")
_Edit: Replying to Hypno-Toad_: That’s my understanding of the situation, yeah. The Wars didn’t seem to have any lasting effect on the law, the church, the economy, the peasantry, the rights of the nobles, or anything else. ---
**Author:** ![Katriona](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/katriona/32/113_2.png) [@Katriona](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Katriona)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2008, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-cant-make-up-history-like-this/473485/34 "2008-11-26T21:10:58Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Unlikely. Much more likely that Henry Tudor had them offed. \* I’ve been convinced for a long time that his mother, Margaret Beaufort (see John of Gaunt), was the brains behind it. Kat, Member of the Richart III Society. ---
**Author:** ![Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fish)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2008, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-cant-make-up-history-like-this/473485/35 "2008-11-26T21:13:05Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Unlikely. Much more likely that Henry Tudor had them offed. That’s my take on the matter as well. It isn’t as if Henry Tudor didn’t take every opportunity to slander Richard III in the history books as it is — if there had been any legitimate evidence that Richard III had been responsible for the murders of princes, that’d be the first thing to come out. ---
**Author:** ![Carl\_Corey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Carl\_Corey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carl_Corey)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2008, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-cant-make-up-history-like-this/473485/36 "2008-11-26T21:15:36Z")
I always thought that Buckingham was behind it. Always wondered why nobody saw the princes after Sept.-Oct. 1483. Henry VII had another reason for repealing Titulus Regius: his wife, Elizabeth of York. (The princes’ sister.) ---
**Author:** ![OtakuLoki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ac8455/32.png) [@OtakuLoki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OtakuLoki)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2008, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-cant-make-up-history-like-this/473485/37 "2008-11-26T21:34:12Z")
Just out of curiousity: ISTR that a few years ago two small skeletons were found interred in the stairs of the Bloody Tower. I believe most people have assumed them to be the remains of the two princes, but has there been any confirmation of that? DNA, carbon dating, or clothing/fiber analysis - that sort of thing? ---
**Author:** ![Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fish)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2008, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-cant-make-up-history-like-this/473485/38 "2008-11-26T22:40:23Z")
If I remember correctly, the bones weren’t even human. Wikipedia [suggests](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princes_in_the_Tower) that the bones were first found in 1675 during a renovation and were interred in Westminster Abbey; they were later reexamined but not all the bones were even human. Age and sex could not be determined. Therefore it’s obvious that Richard III used black sorcery to transform the two princes into a little girl and a dog before having them murdered. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2008, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-cant-make-up-history-like-this/473485/39 "2008-11-27T00:36:29Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Unlikely. Much more likely that Henry Tudor had them offed. > > RIII didn’t have much of a motive- he’d already had them declared illegitimate (and they really were, it seems). > > But Henry had a huge motive- if he was legit, then they were, and they had a better claim. So I was searching for an old post, where I could have sworn that I had argued in the opposite of this - that Richard III had very good and pressing reasons for taking them out. I’m pretty sure I based this on Charles Ross’ biography of Richard III - Ross being in the “rather more likely than not” category. Instead I found this [thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=355250) from 2006 where **Mississippienne** and I were discussing death rates of extinction among nobility. Which tickled me, because I remember the cite I couldn’t recall then :p. > [@So, what was Henry the VIII's problem anyway?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-was-henry-the-viiis-problem-anyway/341060/5): > > However bad luck probably plays a roll and was nothing unusual. Dynasties, great and small, died out all the time from a lack of _legitimate_ male heirs. I forget the exact number, but tornover was high in the medieval world among noble houses ( I want to say about a third of them went extinct in the male line every generation, but I’d need to look for a cite ). > [@So, what was Henry the VIII's problem anyway?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-was-henry-the-viiis-problem-anyway/341060/7): > > I don’t know about a third of the noble houses going extinct every generation, that number seems excessively high. You’re right - it was more like a quarter ( ~24-30% ) of the English peerage per 25 year generation in the 14th century :D. Per K.B. MacFarlane, The Nobility of Later Medieval England ( 1973 Clarendon Press, Oxford ). Poking around apparently the numbers were much the same for the 15th and 16th century and E. Perroy ( for France ) and A. Grant ( for Scotland ) have turned up roughly similar numbers. So noble houses in western Europe seemed to have gone extinct ( or were very occasionally dispossed ) in the male line, on average, after four generations, at least in the High Middle Ages/Renaissance. Err…sorry for the hijack, but it IS rather mundane and pointless ;). ---
**Author:** ![Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fish)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2008, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-cant-make-up-history-like-this/473485/40 "2008-11-29T17:36:29Z")
After pondering Henry VIII and his six wives, why the hell did #6 (Catherine Parr) agree to marry him? By the time Cathy #3 got there, Henry VIII had already had two wives annulled (Cathy #1 and Anne #2) and two wives beheaded (Anne #1 and Cathy #2). The remaining wife (Jane Seymour) died in childbirth. Was Catherine Parr a gambler, or what? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-cant-make-up-history-like-this/473485.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-cant-make-up-history-like-this/473485.md?page=3)