Scan barcode
_hollie064_'s review against another edition
1.0
We got a biography of Anne Neville but at what cost?
I appreciate that Anne is a historical figure we have very little information on and I think that Hicks does a good job at speculating possible dates for the important events in her life which have been lost (such as both her marriages, her time in sanctuary and the birth of her son).
However, I am absolutely disgusted by Hick's casual misogyny in this book. In his opening chapter he states that there has been a "relative epidemic of studies of the late medieval queens". He uses the term epidemic as if this were a bad thing but I guess that's what to expect from a historian who also has to reassure that women did in fact existence in this period. Like obviously women existed then Michael, women weren't created in 1999.
I also believe he is down right cruel in the way he describes Anne Neville. He describes this women who lived and suffered great tragedy in her life as "past her sell by date" and constantly refers to her as a failure because her only child died.
Hicks spends more time discussing his theory that Richard deliberately sought the incorrect type of papal dispensation for their marriage in some sort of Machiavellian plot that comes to literally nothing than he does on Anne's illness. He turns Anne's death into a footnote in Richard's villainy in her own damn biography!
This book was published as part of a larger series on England's forgotten queens and I just wish they had chosen a different historian who would have treated Anne with the dignity and respect she deserves. No one forced Hick's to write this but it sure does feel like it as he laments on "how sad the titillating possibility that Richard's mistress was wet-nurse to his legitimate son cannot apply". Get a room Michael and then don't come back out.
I appreciate that Anne is a historical figure we have very little information on and I think that Hicks does a good job at speculating possible dates for the important events in her life which have been lost (such as both her marriages, her time in sanctuary and the birth of her son).
However, I am absolutely disgusted by Hick's casual misogyny in this book. In his opening chapter he states that there has been a "relative epidemic of studies of the late medieval queens". He uses the term epidemic as if this were a bad thing but I guess that's what to expect from a historian who also has to reassure that women did in fact existence in this period. Like obviously women existed then Michael, women weren't created in 1999.
I also believe he is down right cruel in the way he describes Anne Neville. He describes this women who lived and suffered great tragedy in her life as "past her sell by date" and constantly refers to her as a failure because her only child died.
Hicks spends more time discussing his theory that Richard deliberately sought the incorrect type of papal dispensation for their marriage in some sort of Machiavellian plot that comes to literally nothing than he does on Anne's illness. He turns Anne's death into a footnote in Richard's villainy in her own damn biography!
This book was published as part of a larger series on England's forgotten queens and I just wish they had chosen a different historian who would have treated Anne with the dignity and respect she deserves. No one forced Hick's to write this but it sure does feel like it as he laments on "how sad the titillating possibility that Richard's mistress was wet-nurse to his legitimate son cannot apply". Get a room Michael and then don't come back out.
helenephoebe's review against another edition
3.0
Review - In a way this isn't so much a biography of Anne Neville as of the Neville family as a whole and their impact on England - the book does examine in as much detail as can be gleaned from the very few surviving sources Anne Neville's two marriages and the impacts of them on English history, but it also explores the lives of her parents and sister alongside. This is perhaps because Anne wasn't seen as being important during her own lifetime, especially not in the early years.
General Subject/s? - Biography / Wars of the Roses / History
Recommend? – Maybe
Rating -14/20
General Subject/s? - Biography / Wars of the Roses / History
Recommend? – Maybe
Rating -14/20
duchessofreadin's review against another edition
1.0
Anne Neville is one of the shadow queens of England. While we have glimpses of her through records, not enough remains to paint a clear picture of her. What we do know is through the lives of her husbands and father. Traitor, Princess, Wife, Widow, Wife, Mother, Queen. Anne Neville packed quite a bit of living into a short lifespan. She was only 28 years old when she died, but she lived more than most people do today in 80 years.
Through the brief glimpses that we are given, Michael Hicks attempts to paint a picture of this lady of the shadows, but I found myself disappointed. He seemed more interested in making a villain of Richard III than trying to glean out more information on Anne Neville, even painting her as complicit in some of what he called "Richard's schemes" but also Anne herself using Richard to gain what she wanted.
I have been wanting to read this book, but I was completely disappointed with the entire read. I felt that to much of the author's personal bias went into writing this book, therefore the waters were muddy even before anyone tries to pick history apart and paint a more thorough picture.
I would not really recommend out this read. While some personal bias is fine, everyone has it, this author goes above and beyond, making the read completely un-enjoyable.
Through the brief glimpses that we are given, Michael Hicks attempts to paint a picture of this lady of the shadows, but I found myself disappointed. He seemed more interested in making a villain of Richard III than trying to glean out more information on Anne Neville, even painting her as complicit in some of what he called "Richard's schemes" but also Anne herself using Richard to gain what she wanted.
I have been wanting to read this book, but I was completely disappointed with the entire read. I felt that to much of the author's personal bias went into writing this book, therefore the waters were muddy even before anyone tries to pick history apart and paint a more thorough picture.
I would not really recommend out this read. While some personal bias is fine, everyone has it, this author goes above and beyond, making the read completely un-enjoyable.
emmsbookshelf's review against another edition
1.0
A terrible history/biography in regards to the fact that it is full of heavy bias against Richard III and full of assumptions.
beejai's review against another edition
3.0
I was absolutely at a loss as to how I am going to rate and review this book. I quickly tried to scan through a few other reviews and found two common factors in what everybody was saying:
1) This biography shouldn't even have been written. The author openly acknowledges that there are practically no historical sources to draw on when painting a picture of the life of Anne Neville.
2) They throw a lot of heat on the author for not being a fan of Richard III.
I fully agree with the first point and disagree with the second. Richard III was a bad king. He was a bad person. I have no problem with an author making moral judgments or sharing opinions on the subject they are writing about when it is warranted.
That said, I do believe the author did the best they could when responding to their publisher's request to write a biography on the life of Anne Neville. In reality, this is more a book around the life of Queen Anne. She is a silhouette in the middle of the portrait he drew of the War of the Roses. In that respect, I appreciate the unique approach to a very well covered topic.
1) This biography shouldn't even have been written. The author openly acknowledges that there are practically no historical sources to draw on when painting a picture of the life of Anne Neville.
2) They throw a lot of heat on the author for not being a fan of Richard III.
I fully agree with the first point and disagree with the second. Richard III was a bad king. He was a bad person. I have no problem with an author making moral judgments or sharing opinions on the subject they are writing about when it is warranted.
That said, I do believe the author did the best they could when responding to their publisher's request to write a biography on the life of Anne Neville. In reality, this is more a book around the life of Queen Anne. She is a silhouette in the middle of the portrait he drew of the War of the Roses. In that respect, I appreciate the unique approach to a very well covered topic.
elysianfield's review
1.0
Since there isn't that much known about Anne, majority of the book is about Wars of the Roses.
You can clearly see that Hicks isn't fan of Richard and certainly doesn't like the idea of the marriage between Richard and Anne. He mentions several times how these days Richard would be registered as sex offender. Because he had sex with Anne when she was minor and because they had such a big age difference. 4 freaking year difference! He also calls him as "serial pedophile" and "serial incestor". He very seriously thins that Richard's marriage to Anne was incestuous, mainly because he married the sister of his sister-in law.
You can clearly see that Hicks isn't fan of Richard and certainly doesn't like the idea of the marriage between Richard and Anne. He mentions several times how these days Richard would be registered as sex offender. Because he had sex with Anne when she was minor and because they had such a big age difference. 4 freaking year difference! He also calls him as "serial pedophile" and "serial incestor". He very seriously thins that Richard's marriage to Anne was incestuous, mainly because he married the sister of his sister-in law.
More...