I was lucky enough to come across this treasure at a charity shop, and having a passionate interest in English history eagerly snapped it up.And I am glad I did. With a novelists flair , Thomas Costain creates both a detailed history of England and its monarchs from the declining years of Edward III to the death of Richard III at the battle of Bosworth and the early early years of Henry VII.Costain combines political history with social history, taking us through the overview while providing us with some lesser known but juicy titbit'sPart 1 details the life of Richard II from his birth to his murder at Pontefract.It touches on the last years of Edward III, his beguiling mistress Alice Perrers, the intrigues of his court, the interplay between his sons , indulging the popular and valiant, Edward the Black Prince, the proud and intriguing John of Gaunt and his magnificent palace The Savoy his mistress Katherine Swynford, and his ultimate failure. Social history abounds including the blond and plump Flemish prostitutes of the Savoy, to the clothes and food of the time the forerunners of Protestantism in England, the reformist (and terrible persecuted Lollards) Also featuring is the blustering bully, another son of Edward III. Thomas of Woodstock and his intrigues and violenceThe Peasant Revolt is well covered, featuring the massacres of Flemish merchants crown officials and lawyers and the liberation of a key prison in which all the inmates were freed, a foreshadow of the seizure of the Bastille in France, some 400 years later.The Peasants Revolt was a key point in English history, the foundations of the social order were shaken. Wat Tyler as we read was the virtual ruler of London for two days. It also provided the boy king Richard II with his finest hour when Wat Tyler was killed andRichard calmed the mob , promising to be their leader and to fulfill their demands.This proved to be deceitful as he rescinded (likely under pressure from his nobles) all his promises and sacked the countryside, crushing all dissent by the common people, telling the peasants 'Villeins you are and villeins you will remain' Richard was ultimately a weak and effete rulers.The section ends with the decline of Richard's power, the connivance of those around him, leading to him being deposes and murdered at Pontefract by conspirators centered on Henry of Bolingbroke , the son of John of Gaunt and to be Henry IVHenry IV was sickly and undistinguished in his reign and was succeeded by the mercurial and martial genius, Henry V, who crushed a Welsh revolt that had almost succeeded, and best known of course for his victory in France at Agincourt and his wooing and marriage of Katherine of Valois, younger sister to Isabella of France, the young queen who was married to Richard II and who the young Prince Hal was besotted with in his boyhood. It had ad been his plan as as a result of this to marry her younger sister Katherine. , in addition to the power in France it gave him.Brilliant section of the Wars of the Roses, the half mad. pious Henry VI, Richard , the Duke of York, the conniving Richard Neville (Earl of Warwick and the king maker) and the passionate and merciless Margaret of Anjou , Henry VI's French queen.As the war ended with the triumph of Edward IV, the intrigues of his brother George, Duke of Clarence who rebelled several times against Edward and was killed in the Tower of London on Edward's orders.according to popular legend drowned in a butt of his favourite malmsey wine.Costain examines the figures he covers throughly He describes how Edward was beguiled into marriage by the beautiful Elizabeth Woodville and the dissolution of Edwards court. Edward had expended all his energy it seemed on getting the throne and once he got it fell into decadence.His most well known mistress the lovely and light hearted promiscuous Jane Shore is mentioned here (and he describes both the penance she was forced to do by Richard III after he became king and his pardoning of her when petiotned to do so by solicitor and royal official Thomas Lynom after he fell in love with her (which was an act of compassion as pointed out by Costain)One of the great achievements of Edward IV's reign was the printing press of William Caxton whose life Costain devotes a several pages to.,Bu the key part of the book is a passionate defense by the the author of the character of Richard III who he carefully and methodically defends against the charges of killing his royal nephews in the tower, as well as other crimes he was accused of by Tudor historians such as Sir Thomas More, including killing Henry VI with his own hand, accusing his mother , the proud Duchess Cicely of adultery and his brother Edward IV of therefore being illegitimate. and also being the main hand behind getting his bother the duke of Clarence sentenced to die.Coitain shows many of these charges are false, and as regards the murder of the Princes of the Tower provides a strong case of their being murdered by Henry Tudor. He made me lean to thinking King Richard innocent having previously leaned to believing him guilty after I read Princes in the Tower by Alison Weir.Regardless of his guilt or innocence in the crime the author deals with this in consummate detail and expertise. I find just about anything written on Richard III most intriguing having read many historic novels centering on Richard IIIPublished in 1962, the book is so well written, so exciting and examines everything with such skill that this book is not at all dated, and I recommend any aficionado of medieval English history to get themselves a copy of this magisterial work.
First off – a detailed family tree would have [i]really[/i] helped.Second, there is a bias that still, to this day, permeates the book world – a belief that only men “can” write historical non-fiction while only women “can” write historical-fiction. The bias is that women are so in tune to feelings and domesticity and babies and staying in the kitchen and falling in love and their teeny tiny widdle brains can only handle fluffy ideas and day to day matters while men have the strong, analytical minds needed to hold complex ideas and see the Big Picture and don’t care about love and can handle the serious work.Urgh.And the double standard of this belief shows strongly here with someone like Thomas Costain, who should have stuck to his historical fiction, but clearly felt he would only get respect with “manly” non-fiction, because that’s what the 20th century expected of him.He does a fabulous job making the people of the Plantagenet era come to life, making wonderful guesses at motivation and emotion, describing actions and facial expressions and physical characteristics and thoughts and words and all without a single citation to back up his assertions of this-is-what-happened.It reads like great historical fiction with a slightly bombastic and overly intrusive narrator – seriously, right up there with Sharon Kay Penman. Almost as good. He really digs into the history and pulls out some absolutely fabulous characters – snarling villains, golden princes, ice cold maidens, etc. – all the best of the usual medieval pageantry However, he also does a lot of comparing and contrasting with later time periods, which I found annoying, because I don’t think it adds anything to the understanding of the era to talk about stuff that won’t happen for [i]centuries[/i]. If writing a biography about Catherine the Great, talking about Stalin’s secret police doesn’t help explain Catherine’s actions. If writing about the acquisition Alaska, adding in an aside about Sarah Palin’s mannerisms doesn’t help explain 19th century Russian-American relations. In an in-depth analysis of the Napoleonic wars, talking about Hitler’s invasion of Poland doesn’t add to an understanding of the 1810’s. Etc., etc. Think about it – if someone in the 22nd century wrote a biography of Anne Frank, would it help the book to talk about some event in 2060? Costain also constantly jumps ahead of himself within the narrative, introducing a new historical personage and in the same sentence casually mentioning they are going to die a horrible death in about three chapters. I think this, more than anything, reflects the sea change in writing non-fiction these days. Today, a non-fiction book is more likely to resemble a psychological thriller or murder mystery, keeping the reader in the dark until the end about who will live and who will die, who gets their just desserts and who slinks away into obscurity. A good biography of Lincoln written in the 20th century would constantly make mention of his assassination throughout, while a good biography of Lincoln written in the 21st century will keep you on the edge of your seat right up until Booth pulls the trigger.A very good example of this is “The Last Duel” by Eric Jager. It examines a duel between two knights, fighting to prove or disprove a rape charge, with a lot of political clout, money, honor, and property on the metaphorical table, and the book does not reveal who wins the duel until the climatic end. Costain, on the other hand, really seems to feel his audience already knows the history of Henry II (ummmmm…) and sees nothing wrong with “spoiling” us throughout about how things are going to end. He gets worse as he goes on, covering the Battle of Agincourt in half a page, with the airy words: “but all this is familiar ground to readers of the Plantagenet story.” So…. you’re just going to assume your book is the 5th or 6th book your reader has read about the French/English early 15th century history???However, one area where he really shines is examinations of [i]logistics[/i]. He uses a sharp lens to figure out what would be physical when it comes to how many soldiers could march down a 15th century road, how long it would take to march from Point A to Point B, and how many soldiers any given part of the country could house and feed. It allows him to make some very accurate points about how many people were involved in different events. Then, as he gets into the later 15th century where I do happen to know a thing or two about the era, I start playing spot-the-plot-hole, as he skips over some of the more important bits, and he decides to play merry havoc with the timeline, outright stating he has no desire to cover the reign of Edward IV in chronological order. (So what on Earth are you doing writing [i]history chronicle[/i]???) The fact that I can see, in the part I am well read in, has so many holes in it, calls into question the coverage of everything that came prior.(Also, blaming the second half of the War of the Roses on Elizabeth Woodville? Low blow, you misogynistic git.) Lastly, we get to the reign of Richard III and Costain outs himself as a fully pro-Richard, doing his absolute best to “fix” the record, doing his best to prove Richard was not guilty of the murder of the Princes in the Tower. I have said it before and I will say it again. Pro-Richard / Anti-Richard historian cage match. It. Would. Be. EPIC. Squee!
What do You think about The Last Plantagenets (1963)?
The Last Plantagents! Bravo!This is very good. The section on Richard II though is long. Too long considering how quickly The War of The Roses fly by. Its all so well explained though, and he really introduces each character well, and lets you know exactly who you should be watching out for. This is a great device in this kind of book, as there are tons of characters that just pop up for a bit and then go away again, only to return in a key role 200 pages later. I don't think anyone else writes in this way. It cements everything into my brain. So Ive read books 1 & 4, and im still well excited to read the middle two volumes.
—Richard
This may be called "The Last Plantagenets", but "The Least of the Plantagenets" might summarize the characters and the book. It seems that Costain didn't really like this part of the story and rushed through it. What's more inexplicable is his inclusion of the entire House of Lancaster in this book. Yes, there may be a trace of Plantagenet blood legitimizing the Lancastrians, but we didn't really need to read about it. Of course, if Costain had kept the narrative quality to the same level as the three previous volumes, we might have overlooked the disconnect between title and content. Again, the tracks are well-spaced.
—Thomas
While I love reading about the Plantagenet history, I struggled not only with the writing style, which jumped around quite a bit, but also with the title relative to the narrative. I expected a more equal treatment of all from Richard II to Richard the III and that wasn't the case. In fact, the portions on Edward the IV were paltry compared to the chapters ad nauseum on Richard II. I wouldn't recommend this book if you don't already have a fairly good knowledge about the time period as the author assumes as much with references to actions that are not covered. I struggled to give this book a 3 - I guess I'd give it a 2.5 if that were an option.
—Rosemary Prawdzik
