A Strange Accident of State

Good Afternoon,
Maria, I was wondering if you have had the opportunity
to read the above by David Beeston yet.I always appreciate your opion.
Dave

--- In , mowbraynotts
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> Good Afternoon,
> Maria, I was wondering if you have had the
opportunity
> to read the above by David Beeston yet.I always appreciate your
opion.
> Dave

Hello Dave,

It was actually myself who ordered this book. Unfortunately I am
still waiting for Amazon to get hold of a copy for me. I have a nasty
feeling I'm not going to see it. I'll let you know if it does come,
though.

Marie

--- In , mowbraynotts
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> Good Afternoon,
> Maria, I was wondering if you have had the
opportunity
> to read the above by David Beeston yet.I always appreciate your
opion.
> Dave

The book - or most of it - arrived this week.

I've only had a chance to skim it briefly, plus pages 25-32 are
missing, so I may not be doing the book proper justice.

Like Bennett's book, it was written for the occasion of the 500th
anniversary of Stoke, so doesn't necessarily represent the author's
real enthusiasm.

His main aim is to demonstrate that Stoke has been unfairly
overlooked, and was the real end of the Wars of the Roses. It was
probably a larger battle than Bosworth, and shows that Henry did
continue to face a genuine threat after Bosworth. He makes the very
fair point that Perkin Warbeck, despite the long number of years
during which he posed a threat, and the greater number of foreign
rulers who supported him, never succeeded in mounting anything like
such a formidable invasion. Which I agree with.

On the plus side, he also gives good backround to the Irish
political /cultural situation - and I suspect this may be a long-
standing interest.

Also Beeston is generally pretty accurate - no major historical
bloomers.

However, the list of sources used is not great, and he relies quite
uncritically on Henry's writers Vergil and Andre, not to mention the
much later Bacon. So the possibility that Henry's explanation may
have been less than frank is not considered at all. Certainly, there
is not a single piece of new research so far as I can see. So he
succumbs to what I call the "lazy historian's" cop-out of dismissing
folk whose behaviour does not make sense in light of the traditional
account as unstable (in Beeston's case it is Elizabeth Woodville who
is written off as "this erratic and unpredictable woman").
Similar lack of research or questioning causes Beeston to repeat
uncritically the Minster Lovell skeleton story.

Pondering the reasons for lack of support for the invading Yorkists,
Beeston fails to consider the impact of the papal bull anathematising
rebels against Henry, and also Henry's assertion that the pretender
was a fake and his exhibition of an alternative Warwick in London. To
my mind, the bull of excommunication would have been far more of a
coup than is usually realised. After all, a similar papal endorsement
for the Norman invasion of Ireland managed to take the wind out of
Gaelic rebel sails until the Reformation.

Generally, I feel it is a very useful guide to events provided you're
not looking to it for new ideas or any kind of detective work; it
even has a map of the battlefield, family trees and a couple of other
illustrations. At £1.95 it is very cheap , but I don't think there's
any excuse for the carelessness with which my particular copy was put
together. It runs fine up to page 24. Then we get pages 41 to 48.
Then pages 33 to 63 (the end). So pages 25 to 32 are missing
altogether, and pages 41 to 48 are in twice! I could send it back,
but given the time it has taken to arrive, and the fact that it has
cost me very little and seems to have no new revelations, I don't
think I'll bother.

Marie

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
At £1.95 it is very cheap , but I don't think there's
> any excuse for the carelessness with which my particular copy was
put
> together. It runs fine up to page 24. Then we get pages 41 to 48.
> Then pages 33 to 63 (the end). So pages 25 to 32 are missing
> altogether, and pages 41 to 48 are in twice! I could send it back,
> but given the time it has taken to arrive, and the fact that it has
> cost me very little and seems to have no new revelations, I don't
> think I'll bother.
>
> Marie


Don't bother to send it back, just write to the publisher. Yours
probably isn't the only mis-assembled copy (the entire run may be)
and in any case they should either refund your money or send you a
correctly-assembled copy.

Katy

Marie,
Thank you for your opinion of the above, very much appreciated.Going
to keep a hard copy with the publication.
Regards.
Dave.