Edward IV New DNB article

Today's Oxford DNB Life of the Week is Edward IV. The author, Rosemary Horrox, tries very hard to be fair to him. She makes fewer references to Richard than might be expected. A few are favorable (e.g., his banning of "benevolences"), most are neutral, and some are mildly unfavorable (she seems to think that he would have continued the war with Scotland, belied by his treaty with that country and excellent relations with its king) and she appears to blame him for the deposition of Edward V (no hint that he might actually have been illegitimate).

She mentions that Buckingham was excluded from Prince Edward's council, which certainly would have been a reason to resent Edward IV--and possibly to fear that the boy's mind had been poisoned against him (my speculations).

Print or save the article if you're not a subscriber as it will only be up for a week. The URL is http://www.oxforddnb.com/public/lotw/1.html

Carol

Hi Carol, strangely enough I was going to write about Horrox, whose Study in Service is at my side all the time at the moment. It's a masterly piece of research so it seems churlish to criticise. However - she quotes Ross and More ad infinitum without analysing them at all. If they say it, it must be right. It's a cold book and Richard is the cardboard person at the centre who just does things; I know Doug didn't much care for Jones but at least he tries to get under Richard's skin. Richard is the plotting usurper and Edward the golden Tiberius. His last years brought prosperity and stability. Really? War with Scotland, betrayal of Margaret, renewed tension with Louis. She details all the actions of the Woodvilles after saying that Edward never intended a protectorate, but it's Richard who is at fault for stepping in and trying to sort it out. No mention that this is High Treason last seen at the time of Isabella and Mortimer. The pre-contract is given two sentences and dismissed. Edward IV and Henry VII are not usurpers because they won battles; Richard is, even though he was offered the Crown by the Council and tacitly by the Church, Parliament and the City of London. (it's surprising how many historians omit this, even though the City of London's disapproval alone was enough to bring down Warwick at the Readeption).
And so it goes on. She sums up by detailing all the good stuff Richard did as King, but that's because he was guilty and trying to get on the right side of traitors. It's a book that makes me cross but she does unwittingly throw in some good info (a bit like Hicks who she also quotes). It lacks logic - Buckingham totally defeats her and she admits it. And the index of people is awful which means you have to plough through every page in case they get a mention. However it is 1989, so perhaps she's moved on, but I doubt it. As someone who likes objective history it goes a step too far, even for me.
There, I've had my rant. H

From: "justcarol67@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 28 April 2016, 21:08
Subject: Edward IV New DNB article

Today's Oxford DNB Life of the Week is Edward IV. The author, Rosemary Horrox, tries very hard to be fair to him. She makes fewer references to Richard than might be expected. A few are favorable (e.g., his banning of "benevolences"), most are neutral, and some are mildly unfavorable (she seems to think that he would have continued the war with Scotland, belied by his treaty with that country and excellent relations with its king) and she appears to blame him for the deposition of Edward V (no hint that he might actually have been illegitimate).

She mentions that Buckingham was excluded from Prince Edward's council, which certainly would have been a reason to resent Edward IV--and possibly to fear that the boy's mind had been poisoned against him (my speculations).

Print or save the article if you're not a subscriber as it will only be up for a week. The URL is http://www.oxforddnb.com/public/lotw/1.html

Carol

Brilliant rant Hilary. Telling it as it is.
Mary