Always nice when a historian doesn't allow their personal feeling to color their perspective and obviously Norwich does NOT like Richard II. Frankly his description of Richard in the Wilton Diptych borders on libelous... or he found a different diptych than I did....It was pleasant to read a sympathetic account of Henry IV Bolingbroke but fanboying on Prince Hal was a bit nauseating. Also blantantly obvious that Norwich wants to believe Richard III poisoned Anne Nevill but he can't quite find the cojones to say so, so he waffles about her cause of death being "probably natural causes" (most likely TB from what I've read)My last thought was that being a canonized saint does NOT make one even more of a reliable historian, in my opinion, and Moree WAS writing after the fact. Memory is vicarious and truly unreliable and who knows how many people told him what he wanted to hear?Over all the books was unevenly pace and tended to be a bit of a slog in the chapters of Kings Norwich doesn't like, except Richard III, that moved quite well.
This is a fun enough read--the author's stated purpose is to investigate the historical accuracy of Shakespeare's history plays. The answer, Shakespeare was a dramatist, not a historian. However, his Elizabethan audience would have got the clear message of the importance of the strong, successful (Tudor) monarchy, in comparison to the largely dysfunctional one in the 14th-15th centuries. Some of the comparison of historical chronology to the play is dense and confusing, but otherwise, it is well-written and recommended for medieval or Shakespeare fans.
Enjoyed very much, fast paced, funny, with lots of detail. Lord Norwich is not shy about describing these historical people in an unvarnished way (many other reference books gloss over the nasty bits). One challenge is that the names can be confusing, as the same person may be referred to as "Wally", "Duke of Gloucester", "the Duke", "Gloucester" and the "Black Gaunt Prince". Nobody gets by with just one name, which is apparently the norm for British nobility, but takes some getting used to for us plain-speaking Americans...
—Mark
This is a very entertaining, interesting, and informative book, especially for someone like me who teaches some of the history plays every time I teach the Shakespeare course. Norwich first reviews the historical record, beginning with the reign of Edward III, then matches the record to the play (he accepts that the play, Edward III, was written by Shakespeare, in accordance with the Cambridge and Arden Shakespeares, but not accepted by the Norton/Oxford ones). He doesn't argue that Shakespeare should have adhered more closely to the "facts"; he just points out where the plays and the facts don't coincide. I thoroughly enjoyed both the "facts" and the discrepencies.
—Joanne Gass
