Wilkinson
Wilkinson
2012-12-04 10:29:35
My thoughts on the book:-
Richard The Young King to Be
by Josephine Wilkinson
A review.
by Paul Trevor Bale
The first thing that everyone seems to agree with about Josephine Wilkinsonýs Richard The Young King to Be?ý is that it is a hard read, and I admit to struggling at times.
One reader was already bored to tears by the end of the first chapter, mainly because so much of the material is well known to us Ricardians, who donýt need to read yet again the date, details and circumstances, of Richardýs birth, though any book has to appeal to the general reader, who may well know nothing at all about the subject, so a potted history of the times has to be included.
ýPottedý is however something Wilkinson seems unable to achieve.
I was less than 30 pages into the book when the question I had asked myself, why publish this history in two volumes, was answered, as each and every saint whose name was given to a scion of the House of York is given a full history. What this has to do with why Richard Plantagenet became the man he became is beyond me, and, to this reader, of little interest.
In this first chapter the author also spends a long time explaining astrological charts, what they entail, and what, if Richard was born at such and such a time, his personality would have been like. Such charts are of course a generalisation of how a person's personality and their traits may be, and although in Richard's time astrology may have been a more important issue, many today have no belief in it whatsoever.
At length the writer tells us what 15th century writer John Rous had to say about Richard, without explaining how the unprincipled Rous changed his history of Richard twice, hugely complimentary of him when he was alive, but after the kingýs death changing his story completely. We are given some pseudo-psychology wrapped up with the astrology, based on Rous' statement that Richard was born when Scorpio was rising on October 22nd 1452. The 22nd note, not the 2nd! Lets face it, if Rous couldn't get the date of Richard's birth right, he would hardly know the exact time he was born.
There follows, again at length, a discussion about the Rous story that Richard was two years in the womb and born with hair and teeth. The medical theories included here, about this include one suggestion that he had Pierre Robin Syndrome being, an expert informs me, laughable. Natal teeth are associated with Pierre Robin, so, Wilkinson reasons, Richard must have had the syndrome. But Pierre Robin Syndrome patients have underdeveloped lower jaws. The fact that Richard's portraits all show him with a strong jaw line is not mentioned, or that the natal teeth and hair tale is just that, a fiction!
Amongst the numerous sources making their first appearance in this chapter are Michael Hicks, and the sainted More. More wasn't born until 1472 so could not possibly know anything about Richard, while Hicks ýpoints out that Richard did not speak with a northern accentý, discovered no doubt from those tape recordings he has found!
All this in the first chapter which along with the lengthy discourse on the lives of the saints will put many readers off before they are very far into Richardýs story, and eveN make them wonder whoýs story they are in fact reading!
I was sitting on the bus reading more of the book when the writer mentioned someone called Richard, and I had to ask myself who she was talking about as I had by then almost forgotten, amongst the endless details of the lives of those involved in the Wars of the Roses, and lives of their favourite saints, that this is supposed to be a book about our Richard!
Whereas historical novelist Susan Higginbottom in her review says :-
"though highly sympathetic to Richard, it avoided the romanticism of Paul Murray Kendall - no escaping with Anne to breathe the free air of the moors, for instance"
Incorrect, say I. What we do get is stuff like this:-
Referring to our Richard after the news of Wakefield and the fate of the treatment of his fatherýs head Wilkinson writes :-
"that mocking crown would haunt him like a half-remembered nightmare, casting its dark shadow over his waking thoughts and troubling his deepest dreams"
and
"in the hushed , numbed days following the death of his father, as the winter snows buried the dead and the icy winds whispered to the living"
The first suggests she knows what Richard was thinking, and what his dreams were about, and the second is just as fruity as anything Kendall wrote!
All the chronicle quotes in the book are in the original spelling, so I soon realised my thoughts that Wilkinson was writing for a novice to the period reader could be wrong. But then throughout the book she calls Queen Margaret 'Marguerite', not the name she was called in England, so perhaps there is a degree of pretentiousness here, which I find very annoying. And after the earlier pages and pages on the lives of the saints, in chapter 4, straight after the death of the Duke of York, comes something that had me groaning out loud?
"Richard of York's choice of favourite saints is worthy of comment"
Another two pages of the lives of the saints follow! She must be a religious of some kind to have such a deep interest!
BUT in spite of numerous reservations about this book, at chapter 6 I finally found something to like. This chapter is full of detail about Richard's childhood, his education, where he went, what he did, and his duties once created Duke of Gloucester. At last the book has focused on Richard I thought. Then discussion of King Edward's marriage began, and the author uses More again as ýa reliable sourceý this time for the king's appearance. Edward is said to have been 'of body mighty, strong, and clean made'. She does say More was probably only 5 or 6 when he died, but finds nothing wrong with saying his description of the King is valid. Clearly something any 6 year old boy would have been ale to judge!
The sainted Sir Thomas though couldn't even get Edward's age right!
There are a number of other obvious mistakes, describing the University of Cambridge as the University of Canterbury, Fotheringhay is not in Cambridgeshire, and she states that Richard's father was knighted when he was eleven, which I make was in 1422, then says that three years later, in 1429, he attended Henry VI's coronation!
While dealing with the Stanley/Harrington Hornby castle issue must be seen as a plus, it needs to be explained clearly, which the writer does not do. In fact the way she tells it it doesnýt make a lot of sense.
At times during the book I do get the feeling that she likes Richard. But up against the flowery descriptions of ýhis ducal coronet, beneath which his long brown locks flowed in waves about his shoulders, framing his handsome faceý, we find the accusation that Richardýs removing Anne Neville (always spelled in the book without the ýeý) to sanctuary was ýtantamount to rapeý, yes, Hicks has a lot to answer for, and follows this with a quotation from Shakespeare, and the statement that Richard had no interest in Anne whatsoever if she did not come with her inheritance.
This lands issue is, according to Wilkinson, ýRichardýs dark secretý, not the later disappearance of his nephews, but his acquisitiveness and lust for land and property, and uses the cartulary Cotton Julius BXII as proof. I see this as being the natural wish to discover exactly what a lord of his high rank and dignity, and workload, will have to use each and every year to discharge his tasks, and later be able to leave his descendants. Wilkinson paints a portrait of Richard scurrying round the country scribbling down into a book, a big grin on his face, and a twinkle in his eye, details of every inch of land, every penny of income. Then says that of course though, not one word of the cartulary is in Richardýs own hand.
Later on a dissection of the Warwick inheritance issue, and a discussion of the Countess of Oxfordýs land division, has the author arguing that, although Richard was acquisitive, and at times ruthless in this, a lot of it was driven by Richardýs early insecure years, by Clarence in his greed, by Edward in his search for a political settlement, as well as by Anneýs own wish to keep hold of her share of the Warwick inheritance. Interesting arguments here.
However a lurid description of a typical wedding night that she says was probably like that of Richard and Anne, [based on the hardly typical marriage of James IV of Scotland!] is unnecessary, even though balanced against a lengthy, detailed, but very useful list of the people and their functions, Richard took into his affinity when he and Anne went to live at Middleham.
I've come to the conclusion that there is actually a good and interesting book inside "Richard the Young king to be", and that doubtless the second volume will be much the same. Together they could make one good volume, on condition that a serious editor comes in with a hatchet.
Richard's early life within the York family is full of detail, well and convincingly described. As is Middleham and the surrounding countryside, in spite of the odd flight of purple prose of 'a lonely hawk floating in the summer sky seeking out its prey' and the such. The castle itself as it would have been seen when Richard first went there is particularly well described, bringing it to life in a way I don't recall reading before. Thereýs also a marvellous section describing the armour Richard would have been trained to help put on a knight, and later try himself.
Talking of Richard's books, the Ipomodon, a story of a young knight whose ambition is to be the most perfect knight, has ýtant le souvienneý written in it in Richard's own hand. But all this is spoiled by the flights of fantasy, and diversions the writer is so fond of. Straight after the Ipomodon section, we are told Richard may have met Sir Thomas Mallory, and we run off into a biography of the man and how and why and when he may have written 'Le Mort D'Arthur'. Like with the histories of all those saints earlier in the book, this writer needs someone to pull her back from all these wanderings that to me look more and more like stuffing.
By the half way mark I had seen enough to know there is a good book here, but the half way mark, had I edited it, would be the quarter point. There's that much waffle!
All in all another lost opportunity to update Richard's reputation, that can only suffer compared to the writing style and content of Annette Carsonýs marvellous Richard III The Maligned King.
Richard Liveth Yet!
Richard The Young King to Be
by Josephine Wilkinson
A review.
by Paul Trevor Bale
The first thing that everyone seems to agree with about Josephine Wilkinsonýs Richard The Young King to Be?ý is that it is a hard read, and I admit to struggling at times.
One reader was already bored to tears by the end of the first chapter, mainly because so much of the material is well known to us Ricardians, who donýt need to read yet again the date, details and circumstances, of Richardýs birth, though any book has to appeal to the general reader, who may well know nothing at all about the subject, so a potted history of the times has to be included.
ýPottedý is however something Wilkinson seems unable to achieve.
I was less than 30 pages into the book when the question I had asked myself, why publish this history in two volumes, was answered, as each and every saint whose name was given to a scion of the House of York is given a full history. What this has to do with why Richard Plantagenet became the man he became is beyond me, and, to this reader, of little interest.
In this first chapter the author also spends a long time explaining astrological charts, what they entail, and what, if Richard was born at such and such a time, his personality would have been like. Such charts are of course a generalisation of how a person's personality and their traits may be, and although in Richard's time astrology may have been a more important issue, many today have no belief in it whatsoever.
At length the writer tells us what 15th century writer John Rous had to say about Richard, without explaining how the unprincipled Rous changed his history of Richard twice, hugely complimentary of him when he was alive, but after the kingýs death changing his story completely. We are given some pseudo-psychology wrapped up with the astrology, based on Rous' statement that Richard was born when Scorpio was rising on October 22nd 1452. The 22nd note, not the 2nd! Lets face it, if Rous couldn't get the date of Richard's birth right, he would hardly know the exact time he was born.
There follows, again at length, a discussion about the Rous story that Richard was two years in the womb and born with hair and teeth. The medical theories included here, about this include one suggestion that he had Pierre Robin Syndrome being, an expert informs me, laughable. Natal teeth are associated with Pierre Robin, so, Wilkinson reasons, Richard must have had the syndrome. But Pierre Robin Syndrome patients have underdeveloped lower jaws. The fact that Richard's portraits all show him with a strong jaw line is not mentioned, or that the natal teeth and hair tale is just that, a fiction!
Amongst the numerous sources making their first appearance in this chapter are Michael Hicks, and the sainted More. More wasn't born until 1472 so could not possibly know anything about Richard, while Hicks ýpoints out that Richard did not speak with a northern accentý, discovered no doubt from those tape recordings he has found!
All this in the first chapter which along with the lengthy discourse on the lives of the saints will put many readers off before they are very far into Richardýs story, and eveN make them wonder whoýs story they are in fact reading!
I was sitting on the bus reading more of the book when the writer mentioned someone called Richard, and I had to ask myself who she was talking about as I had by then almost forgotten, amongst the endless details of the lives of those involved in the Wars of the Roses, and lives of their favourite saints, that this is supposed to be a book about our Richard!
Whereas historical novelist Susan Higginbottom in her review says :-
"though highly sympathetic to Richard, it avoided the romanticism of Paul Murray Kendall - no escaping with Anne to breathe the free air of the moors, for instance"
Incorrect, say I. What we do get is stuff like this:-
Referring to our Richard after the news of Wakefield and the fate of the treatment of his fatherýs head Wilkinson writes :-
"that mocking crown would haunt him like a half-remembered nightmare, casting its dark shadow over his waking thoughts and troubling his deepest dreams"
and
"in the hushed , numbed days following the death of his father, as the winter snows buried the dead and the icy winds whispered to the living"
The first suggests she knows what Richard was thinking, and what his dreams were about, and the second is just as fruity as anything Kendall wrote!
All the chronicle quotes in the book are in the original spelling, so I soon realised my thoughts that Wilkinson was writing for a novice to the period reader could be wrong. But then throughout the book she calls Queen Margaret 'Marguerite', not the name she was called in England, so perhaps there is a degree of pretentiousness here, which I find very annoying. And after the earlier pages and pages on the lives of the saints, in chapter 4, straight after the death of the Duke of York, comes something that had me groaning out loud?
"Richard of York's choice of favourite saints is worthy of comment"
Another two pages of the lives of the saints follow! She must be a religious of some kind to have such a deep interest!
BUT in spite of numerous reservations about this book, at chapter 6 I finally found something to like. This chapter is full of detail about Richard's childhood, his education, where he went, what he did, and his duties once created Duke of Gloucester. At last the book has focused on Richard I thought. Then discussion of King Edward's marriage began, and the author uses More again as ýa reliable sourceý this time for the king's appearance. Edward is said to have been 'of body mighty, strong, and clean made'. She does say More was probably only 5 or 6 when he died, but finds nothing wrong with saying his description of the King is valid. Clearly something any 6 year old boy would have been ale to judge!
The sainted Sir Thomas though couldn't even get Edward's age right!
There are a number of other obvious mistakes, describing the University of Cambridge as the University of Canterbury, Fotheringhay is not in Cambridgeshire, and she states that Richard's father was knighted when he was eleven, which I make was in 1422, then says that three years later, in 1429, he attended Henry VI's coronation!
While dealing with the Stanley/Harrington Hornby castle issue must be seen as a plus, it needs to be explained clearly, which the writer does not do. In fact the way she tells it it doesnýt make a lot of sense.
At times during the book I do get the feeling that she likes Richard. But up against the flowery descriptions of ýhis ducal coronet, beneath which his long brown locks flowed in waves about his shoulders, framing his handsome faceý, we find the accusation that Richardýs removing Anne Neville (always spelled in the book without the ýeý) to sanctuary was ýtantamount to rapeý, yes, Hicks has a lot to answer for, and follows this with a quotation from Shakespeare, and the statement that Richard had no interest in Anne whatsoever if she did not come with her inheritance.
This lands issue is, according to Wilkinson, ýRichardýs dark secretý, not the later disappearance of his nephews, but his acquisitiveness and lust for land and property, and uses the cartulary Cotton Julius BXII as proof. I see this as being the natural wish to discover exactly what a lord of his high rank and dignity, and workload, will have to use each and every year to discharge his tasks, and later be able to leave his descendants. Wilkinson paints a portrait of Richard scurrying round the country scribbling down into a book, a big grin on his face, and a twinkle in his eye, details of every inch of land, every penny of income. Then says that of course though, not one word of the cartulary is in Richardýs own hand.
Later on a dissection of the Warwick inheritance issue, and a discussion of the Countess of Oxfordýs land division, has the author arguing that, although Richard was acquisitive, and at times ruthless in this, a lot of it was driven by Richardýs early insecure years, by Clarence in his greed, by Edward in his search for a political settlement, as well as by Anneýs own wish to keep hold of her share of the Warwick inheritance. Interesting arguments here.
However a lurid description of a typical wedding night that she says was probably like that of Richard and Anne, [based on the hardly typical marriage of James IV of Scotland!] is unnecessary, even though balanced against a lengthy, detailed, but very useful list of the people and their functions, Richard took into his affinity when he and Anne went to live at Middleham.
I've come to the conclusion that there is actually a good and interesting book inside "Richard the Young king to be", and that doubtless the second volume will be much the same. Together they could make one good volume, on condition that a serious editor comes in with a hatchet.
Richard's early life within the York family is full of detail, well and convincingly described. As is Middleham and the surrounding countryside, in spite of the odd flight of purple prose of 'a lonely hawk floating in the summer sky seeking out its prey' and the such. The castle itself as it would have been seen when Richard first went there is particularly well described, bringing it to life in a way I don't recall reading before. Thereýs also a marvellous section describing the armour Richard would have been trained to help put on a knight, and later try himself.
Talking of Richard's books, the Ipomodon, a story of a young knight whose ambition is to be the most perfect knight, has ýtant le souvienneý written in it in Richard's own hand. But all this is spoiled by the flights of fantasy, and diversions the writer is so fond of. Straight after the Ipomodon section, we are told Richard may have met Sir Thomas Mallory, and we run off into a biography of the man and how and why and when he may have written 'Le Mort D'Arthur'. Like with the histories of all those saints earlier in the book, this writer needs someone to pull her back from all these wanderings that to me look more and more like stuffing.
By the half way mark I had seen enough to know there is a good book here, but the half way mark, had I edited it, would be the quarter point. There's that much waffle!
All in all another lost opportunity to update Richard's reputation, that can only suffer compared to the writing style and content of Annette Carsonýs marvellous Richard III The Maligned King.
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Wilkinson
2012-12-04 16:34:39
Paul wrote:
"My thoughts on the book:-
Richard The Young King to Be
by Josephine Wilkinson
A review."
//snip//
Sounds as if Josephine Wilkinson is a frustrated novelist. I'm still going
to keep this in my list of books to read/get - just not at the top!
Thank you for an interesting and perceptive review,
Doug
"My thoughts on the book:-
Richard The Young King to Be
by Josephine Wilkinson
A review."
//snip//
Sounds as if Josephine Wilkinson is a frustrated novelist. I'm still going
to keep this in my list of books to read/get - just not at the top!
Thank you for an interesting and perceptive review,
Doug
Re: Wilkinson
2012-12-04 18:27:47
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> My thoughts on the book:-
>
> Richard The Young King to Be
> by Josephine Wilkinson
> A review.
> by Paul Trevor Bale
>
>
> "Potted" is however something Wilkinson seems unable to achieve.
>
> I was less than 30 pages into the book when the question I had asked myself, why publish this history in two volumes, was answered, as each and every saint whose name was given to a scion of the House of York is given a full history. What this has to do with why Richard Plantagenet became the man he became is beyond me, and, to this reader, of little interest.
Katy says:
Paid by the word was Josephine Wilkinson...paid by each word and every word was she?
Katy
>
> My thoughts on the book:-
>
> Richard The Young King to Be
> by Josephine Wilkinson
> A review.
> by Paul Trevor Bale
>
>
> "Potted" is however something Wilkinson seems unable to achieve.
>
> I was less than 30 pages into the book when the question I had asked myself, why publish this history in two volumes, was answered, as each and every saint whose name was given to a scion of the House of York is given a full history. What this has to do with why Richard Plantagenet became the man he became is beyond me, and, to this reader, of little interest.
Katy says:
Paid by the word was Josephine Wilkinson...paid by each word and every word was she?
Katy
Re: Wilkinson
2012-12-04 18:54:20
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> My thoughts on the book:-
>
> Richard The Young King to Be
> by Josephine Wilkinson
> A review.
> by Paul Trevor Bale
> whatsoever.
>
> Amongst the numerous sources making their first appearance in this chapter are Michael Hicks, and the sainted More. More wasn't born until 1472
Actually, 1478.
Katy
>
> My thoughts on the book:-
>
> Richard The Young King to Be
> by Josephine Wilkinson
> A review.
> by Paul Trevor Bale
> whatsoever.
>
> Amongst the numerous sources making their first appearance in this chapter are Michael Hicks, and the sainted More. More wasn't born until 1472
Actually, 1478.
Katy
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.