Good but irritated by mispronounced place names

Great listen and such a good story, but irritated by numerous mispronounced place names.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

Highly detailed analysis, sloppy performance

Do not expect a chronology of the Wars of the Roses or indeed Richard III's reign. This is a highly technical and analytical look at the man who was to become (in)famous as the last English king to die in battle. It is extremely detailed, an academic work that few other Roses or Ricardian historians cover - and in consequence it does tell us more about the man than many other "biographies". It sets Richard's rule in context and does give us an insight into the man and his times, but sometimes leaves us wondering still about his motivations. The book seems well sourced and researched, and on balance Richard is treated fairly - perhaps unusually given his "marmite" nature to most students of the WotR. Highly recommended for serious students but if you are looking for a simple story of his life, reign and the end of the Plantagenet era, look elsewhere. This gives exhaustive detail of his residences, often his financial accounts, his circumstances but without a basic understanding of the wars, you might be left confused and wondering.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

A Great but Flawed Biography of a Great But Flawed King

If you are looking for a good, meaty, analytical volume that dissects the Tudor propagandistic sources of Richard III usefully, with fairness, thoroughness and (almost) impartiality, in a gripping and engaging way, this is the book for you. It is great.

However, some of the author’s grounds for the approaches he takes are fundamentally, and cardinally, inconsistent and thus problematic for the angle and conclusions of his overall account in ways that can’t be overlooked. thus undermining some of his analyses to the detriment of much of his own subjective discourse.

For example, he immediately discounts basing any of his discussion on findings to do with the ‘probable’ remains found in Leicester Car Park, and the archaeology to be had from them, on the grounds that even with perfect DNA evidence and overwhelming other cumulative evidence, we can’t be SURE they are the mortal remains of Richard III.

However, when dissecting Tudor portraits of Richard as hunchbacked, disfigured and deformed he then cites the evidence of scoliosis thrown up by those same bones as archaeological substantiation for an element of truth to these portraits, even though subsequent experiments whose findings were available to the author at time of writing have since shown that someone of Richard’s rank, in Richard’s career and with Richard’s degree of curvature would not have been significantly disfigured or impeded in the medieval world. He also cites archaeology to base his discussion of the Battle of Bosworth.

He argues that we have to go on the grounds of probability based on accounts nearest the time, and that even if they were propaganda they would have been based on what would have rang true at the time based on living memory (memory of those NOT executed for being loyal to Richard!). However, he refuses to adopt the same ‘balance of probability’ approach to the Leicester bones, despite the probability of their being Richard’s being far greater than the probability of Tudor propaganda being accurate to as useful a degree as his commentary relies upon. The book is flawed.

That being said, readers can think - and judge - for themselves, and if you look past these queries and biases it is a VERY engaging and useful resource on the king and the context surrounding him.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

2 people found this helpful

One Too Many assumptions

Not overly impressed, the author was quite biased in some of his assumptions and belittles Richards prowess on the battle field. He doesnt even point out to the reader that Henry Tudor had dismounted when he realised Richard was heading in his direction and hid behind his pikesmen not very impressive for his time. He fails to accept the evidence that Richard has been found and yet a few chapters later he recommends DNA analysis for the bones found in the tower. In one chapter when Cecilly left her youngest children in London to visit her husband their elder brother Edward visits them according to the author this was polically motivated as his siblings would be useful to him when they came of age, how on earth did he come to this conclusion?

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

1 person found this helpful

A true ‘what could have been’-King.

Not a fan of the narrator. Sometimes highly biased and judging, making assumptions, but I think shows the high capability of Richard, and given my low regards of the Tudor dynasty, makes one wonder how the world would have been if Richard had won. You can not but appreciate the people who followed him, and how the country and much of Europe would been different if not for his defeat in the end.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

1 person found this helpful

"The most. Christian prince, King Richard III."

Meticulously researched, the one thing which really stood out was how little remains of what must have been vast quantities of letters, orders, legal decisions, payment records and all.of the other paper paraphernalia of a busy, fast moving period of change - even Richard's will is missing. Probably fortunate since Michael Hicks seemed to determined to mention every little piece he did uncover and delighted in telling how much, to the farthing, were the costs listed.
As a portrait of the boy to man to king to legend, there was very little new, but it was interesting for anyone truly committed to discovering as much as possible about this remarkable man and how much he actually achieved in his brief (two year) reign

Narration was reasonable but delivery could have been smoother. Matthew Waterson had a fine voice but also an annoying habit of reading with frequent tiny, inappropriate pauses which made listening difficult and was distracting. Initially I gave up on my listening only returning some months later to continue. It made the book hard work as a listen.

Recommended but not for beginners and probably better, where possible, as a print read.
Currently available to download for free through the Audible Plus programme

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

Good history, poor reading

Anyone interested in Richard III would be well advised to buy the book in hard copy and read it. Unlike the reviewer who accuses the author of bias (presumably a committed Ricardian) I felt this was a fair and well reasoned history. The narrator, however, is unbearable. Some reviewers have regarded the relentless mispronunciation as a failure of editing. Personally I think that someone who can't cope even with such well known place names as Lichfield and Ely (Lickfield and Eli) shouldn't be reading British history texts

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

2 people found this helpful

Well researched but rather dry

Have to applaud Michael Hicks' depth of research but this resulted in the major issue I had with this book....so many lists of people, acquisitions, land grabs, affinities and kinships etc that I found ultimately uninteresting though may be of great technical interest to others. There are parts where the action becomes more human ( and to me accessible) but these are briefly dealt with....the personalities of some of the major players are skated over, like Clarence, the Stanley's, Queen Elizabeth and Buckingham for example, occasions like the death of the son of Richard and Anne alluded to as " causing distress". Perhaps M Hicks feels all these have been well dealt with in other biographies. The energy of Richard, his aquisitiveness, ruthlessness at times and attention to detail does come over in the detailed account of his earlier years.
Really wanted to love this book but found it overly academic and dry.
The narration while fluent was rather jumpy in style and personally found this a distraction .

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

Quicker is not Better

This book delivers an different but interesting angle on a much discussed topic. With its attention to precise data that are explored in great detail it's a must-have for students of history. However, the production has been seriously compromised by the narrator. His rapid, staccato deliver of the narrative makes it extremely difficult to absorb these details in any meaningful way. This is, as I it, see is the backbone of this book. The only way I overcame the problem was to run the delivery at three-quarter speed, which bring its own set of problems. So maybe not a must-have.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

2 people found this helpful

Good content marred by constant mispronunciations

This carefully researched book was read in such a slapdash manner as to undermine the credibility of the content. Names of people and places were mangled as were historical terms. It is impossible to select a single example as there were so many. Who did the audio edit?

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

1 person found this helpful