Archaeologists are DNA testing some bones they've found to see if they might be the remains of Richard III. Are there any other members of the Royal Family....

C J Sansom's first Shardlake novel has just been serialised on Womans' Hour, but quite a lot of detail was cut out. Tudors are a bit late for me anyway

Also Ian Mortimer's The Greatest Traitor is good, though perhaps slightly heavier going. He's written other stuff I've not read, and is widely rated as a good academic/popular crossover writer (as is Helen Castor).

And I've just remembered I really enjoyed Amy Kelly's Eleanor of Aquitaine and the Four Kings but haven't read it for years and don't appear to have it any more!

Thank you all for the suggestions. I have noted them all especially about the none factual tv series, thank you.

Someone recommended the CJ Sansom books as good historical fiction, but I can't say I've read them myself.

The Tudors, I admit, is a guilty pleasure of mine. Inaccurate as all hell (why bother changing so much when the truth is as good as any fiction?!) but, ignoring that, I enjoyed watching it. Natalie Dormer, in my opinion, made a fantastic Anne Boleyn. And I loved James Frain as Cromwell.

But there are far better and much more accurate places to find out about this stuff.

Hesitate to recommend this because it's considered 'low brow' by serious historians, and is a bit old-fashioned too, but for history that reads like a story and really holds the interest try Thomas B Costain. The Pageant of England series covers the medieval period in 3 or 4 volumes. I loved them as a teenager - and I went on to read Medieval Studies at University.

It depends which bit you?re interested in. I?d say Helen Castor?s ?She-Wolves? is a good starting point as it focuses on medieval queens. I?d also recommend ?Winter King? by Thomas Penn, which was the most fantastic book on Henry VII. If you want primary sources, The Paston Letters (letters of a 16th century family) is rather good as you can flick in and out and really get a feel for medieval life. It contains mention of the prosaic and profound ? everything from ordering wool for gowns to political gossip from the court and marital contracts and, as I said before, is easy to dip in and out of. The letters are short so you?re not wading through pages and pages of dry text. I have these split in two very old copies, which make them much easier to read.

This might be controversial and I?m sure my old history professor would be twisting in his grave to see me writing this, but I?d also consider reading some historical fiction. Personally, I don?t rate Philippa Gregory, but there are some good authors out there and quite a few good recommendations on this thread. It?s not exactly primary source and I think some people can get a bit sniffy about it, but it can be fantastic for getting a feel for chronology and the bare bones of a reign or period. You can read this alongside some of the meatier biographies and texts. My old English teacher at my dusty boarding school used to hand me copies of Jean Plaidy novels, which are quite dated and dry now in this era of sexed up historical fiction, but are pretty factually accurate. I wouldn?t say read them now though as they?re pretty dated. On no account watch ?The Tudors? television series, which had me ranting at the screen about historical licence and factual inaccuracies. Honestly, what a load of bollocks!

Potato, I think anything by Alison Weir will be the popular recommendation, so I have some different ones! Books I have really enjoyed as good reads (although they all focus in on one bit of the period) are:

Helen Castor's Blood and Roses (as above)
Paul Doherty's Isabella and the Strange Death of Edward II
Piers Paul Read's The Templars (for something a bit more international)

If you don't mind reading something a bit less "storylike" then Gillingham & Griffiths' Medieval Britain: a Very Short Introduction is really good for the whole period and is surprisingly detailed for something so, well, short.

Yay Classics! Ta MNHQ!

As Lietenant George says in Blackadder Goes Forth:

"By Gum, this is interesting. I always loved history. The Battle of Hastings, Henry VIII and his six knives, all that."

Yes. am also delighted to see it moved!
I would recommedn any of the non-fiction by Alison Weir (starting with 'Eleanor of Acquitaine') and specifically 'The Princes in the Tower'

ooh, just noticed thread is in classics

excellent work MNHQ

This is such an entertaining thread. I'm impressed to see how informed MN-ers are. Hope it gets moved.

Can anybody recommend a good starting point in terms of reading material for medieval history please? I know very little so needs to be one that does not assume prior knowledge.
Thank you

I rushed home from work to get back to this thread.

Please don't let it go pfft

Ooh, I tell a lie, just consulted Professor Wiki and Richard II was put on display (which makes the rumours of survival quite bizarre, and goes to demonstrate how little weight can really be attached to such things). Edward II did have a public funeral, but no body was ever displayed, which I think is part of what the survival theory is based on.

I'm not sure I buy the public showing thing. Edward II and Richard II both disappeared mysteriously after their respective depositions in 1327 and 1399, and nobody ever put their bodies on display either. It was left deliberately obscure what had happened, and no bugger was ever going to ask, were they? The Princes fit that pattern.

There is, interestingly, a very recent theory about the survival of Edward II beyond 1327 which has not gained widespread acceptance. But there is nothing like the intense focus there has been on trying to prove the Princes didn't die in 1483, and so unless/until fresh evidence emerges I am inclined to see that focus as the product of cognitive bias. I have also never heard it seriously argued that Richard II survived - although like the Princes there were later rumours that he had and even a pretender of some sort I think. No pretenders ever emerged for Edward II (though that may have been because the next king was his son).

Really, really, really hope this isn't bunfighty, but that's what I think.

'Hawkwood'

Interesting article today in the Times by Ben MacIntyre ( who is my hero anyway for his fab books about spied in the 2WW). Goven that Elixabeth Woodville and Ed IV are buried in the Abbey, they could have been provided DNA samples to test against th skellies prevously found in the Tower.
Agree you can't just go about disinterring skellies we need to know!
(By the way, Frances Stonor Saunders @Hawkoeed' about thr notorious White Company leader in 14th C is a very gripping read - got it out again last night for medieval buffs)

Top thread!

What I don't understand is that if Richard did kill his nephews, why would he not show the bodies?

I mean it would be the sensible thing to do, and he was a very sensible man.

You would have a public showing, "Oh Lawks, they have died of some childhood disease"

Then everyone would have gone about their business, jobo doneo, whether they believed the lie or not.

The last thing he needed was a mystery.

This thread is fantastic!