What do you think?
Rate this book
England's Forgotten Queens
Anne Neville: Queen To Richard III
Anne Neville was queen to England’s most notorious king, Richard III. She was immortalized by Shakespeare for the remarkable nature of her marriage, a union which brought together a sorrowing widow with her husband’s murderer. Anne’s misfortune did not end there. In addition to killing her first husband, this fascinating new biography also reveals how Richard also helped kill her father, father-in-law, and brother-in-law, imprisoned her mother, and was suspected of poisoning Anne herself.
Dying before the age of 30, Anne Neville packed into her short life incident enough for many adventurous careers, but was always the passive instrument of others’ evil intentions. In this book, Anne's story is told in her own right, uncovering the real wife of Richard III.
Dying before the age of 30, Anne Neville packed into her short life incident enough for many adventurous careers, but was always the passive instrument of others’ evil intentions. In this book, Anne's story is told in her own right, uncovering the real wife of Richard III.
254 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2006
22 people are currently reading
657 people want to read
About the author
Michael Hicks
25 books24 followersMichael Hicks (born 1948) is an English historian, specialising on the history of late medieval England, in particular the Wars of the Roses. Hicks studied with C. A. J. Armstrong and Charles Ross while a student at the University of Bristol. He is today Professor of Medieval History at the University of Winchester, and a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society.
Librarian Note:
There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name. See this thread for more information.
Librarian Note:
There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name. See this thread for more information.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 43 reviews
September 14, 2013
This was not good at all.
Admittedly, the source material is scanty at best - Anne Neville left almost no documentary evidence of her existence, and almost none of her household accounts, letters, or other personal items have survived.
With that, biographies of her are difficult at best.
Hicks mentioned, over and over again, that one couldn't judge historical figures by modern standards (specifically about the age of consent, and age of consummation of marriages) and then goes on to call Richard III a 'serial pedophile' and similar off-hand, and quite inappropriate, comments.
Had this been longer than 170 pages, I wouldn't have finished it.
The notes were small and scarce, which drives me nuts in purportedly academic (or academic-lite) works.
I can't recommend it.
(Also, the editor of the series that this is part of is Alison Weir, whose history I don't trust, so I was pre-disposed to not like this.)
Admittedly, the source material is scanty at best - Anne Neville left almost no documentary evidence of her existence, and almost none of her household accounts, letters, or other personal items have survived.
With that, biographies of her are difficult at best.
Hicks mentioned, over and over again, that one couldn't judge historical figures by modern standards (specifically about the age of consent, and age of consummation of marriages) and then goes on to call Richard III a 'serial pedophile' and similar off-hand, and quite inappropriate, comments.
Had this been longer than 170 pages, I wouldn't have finished it.
The notes were small and scarce, which drives me nuts in purportedly academic (or academic-lite) works.
I can't recommend it.
(Also, the editor of the series that this is part of is Alison Weir, whose history I don't trust, so I was pre-disposed to not like this.)
August 18, 2016
No. Just: no. I can not go on. I was warned about this book and have to quit after a couple chapters.
Hicks initially begins with an entire chapter analyzing Shakespeare's version of Anne Neville in "Richard III" which is already bad enough but it doesn't get any better. I should have listened to the warnings. Stay away.
Hicks initially begins with an entire chapter analyzing Shakespeare's version of Anne Neville in "Richard III" which is already bad enough but it doesn't get any better. I should have listened to the warnings. Stay away.
July 18, 2021
Anne Neville: Queen to Richard III
By Michael Hicks
Reviewed September 2012
Anne Neville, Queen to Richard III by Michael Hicks is listed as a biography, but as such, this book is sorely lacking. It’s true that there is little information available about women in medieval times, even if they were queens. There are a few exceptions, but they are just that – exceptions. So, if you go to this book hoping to learn something new about the life of Anne Neville, you won’t find it. There is a lot about her family, and a lot of speculation, but very few facts when it comes to Anne herself.
I also found it to be a poorly written book. It is filled with assumptions that are based in large part upon the author’s own bias against Richard III. For example, there’s a passage that states the Richard of Gloucester was conceited, as if this character trait is a proven fact. Now, maybe Richard was, and maybe he wasn’t. If Hicks has a reason for believing this, fine, but could he share it with the rest of us? Instead, he simply tells us that this is so without providing any evidence to substantiate this claim. Since Hicks is working from the basic premise that anything Richard did was for ulterior, and usually nefarious, self-promoting reasons, I guess this should not come as any big surprise.
Hicks also makes use of tabloid-worthy phrases which left this reader wondering if she was reading a scholarly biography or the medieval version of a Hollywood tell-all. Phrases like “breeding stock that had ceased to breed,” “shacked up with Duke Richard,” “serial incestor,” and “sex offender” are found throughout the book, and chapter headings make use of similar cheap rhetoric such as “Between Princes” and “Past Her Sell-By Date.”
Then there is what I call the much ado about nothing. Hicks has a big problem with what he sees as the lack of a proper dispensation for the marriage of Richard and Anne, and spends an inordinate amount of time on what, in the end, turns out to be a non-issue.
Anne was Richard’s first cousin, once removed. Her sister was married to Richard’s brother. This, according to Hicks, made their marriage nothing less than incestuous. Really? This didn’t seem to bother anyone back in the 15th century as there is no record of a big to-do made over this. And a quick look through the history books shows that this idea of one pair of siblings marrying another pair was not something new or shocking. Rather, it happened on numerous occasions, usually for reasons of dynasty or inheritance, and demonstrates that Richard marrying his sister-in-law was hardly the first instance of brothers marrying sisters among medieval nobility.
Here’s a look at how Richard and Anne were related:
* They were both descended from Edward III. If I counted my “greats” correctly, Edward III was Richard’s fourth great-grandfather, and Anne’s fifth great-grandfather. Or was it third- and fourth-great grandfather? The point being that yes, they shared a common ancestor.
* Richard’s mother (Cecily Neville) and Anne’s grandfather (Richard, Earl of Salisbury) were brother and sister. This is the first cousin once removed relationship.
* Richard was also third cousin of Anne’s first husband, Edward of Lancaster.
Hicks explains that none of these relationships were proscribed by divine law as found in the book of Leviticus, but by human laws, and that they were routinely dispensed for people of rank, usually (almost always?) for a certain amount of money, like some kind of Papal money making program. He then goes into detail discussing the various degrees of affinity for each of these relationships, and it is obvious that he has spent a great deal of time and energy on this matter.
On page 145, Hicks writes,
“...Canon lawyers were not agreed whether cases covered by Leviticus or similar to those in Leviticus could be dispensed by the Pope. There could be no certainty what would result from an application for a full dispensation that removed all the impediments. Perhaps that was why Richard applied initially for a dispensation that would enable him to marry Anne, but which he must have known did not address all the impediments. Surely here he was cynically manipulating the rules? Moreover, these impediments were exacerbated by blatant cohabitation when aware that the previous dispensation was insufficient. Perhaps the proximity of kinship and this multiplicity of impediments meant that no such dispensation could be forthcoming. Certainly another dispensation was absolutely necessary to validate such a union. Apparently no such dispensation was ever secured. Perhaps none was ever sought.”
Here again, we have more of those pesky assumptions. Do we know for a fact that Richard was deliberately and cynically manipulating the rules, or is this just the author’s take on the situation? Additionally, the word “perhaps” is used three times in this short paragraph, along with a “surely here” and an “apparently.” Looks to me like there is an awful lot of assuming going on, reminding me of the old saying that to assume something makes an ass out of U (you) and me.
The worst thing, though, (for Hicks) is that Richard’s brother George was married to Anne’s sister Isabel, effectively making them brother and sister and related in the first degree of affinity, and thus forbidden by canon (divine) law to marry.
On page 146, Hicks writes,
“John Roes states that Richard was the product of “true matrimony without discontinuance or any defiling in the law.” Richard was thus distinguished, by implication, from Edward V, who had just been dethroned on the grounds that his parents were not properly married and whose father’s legitimacy had also been impugned. Roes had no doubts that Anne and Richard were properly married, that Edward of Middleham was their “son and heir”, and “inheritor to both royal possessions” – that is, to both his parents’ possessions. Anne and Richard accepted as much. Maybe there had been a public wedding of which we know nothing conducted by a priest conned by the papal letter declaratory, unaware of or unconcerned by the extent of their relationship. The undispensed impediments were not publicly known, neither to Rows, nor even (as we shall see) to Crowland. Evidently, Anne and Richard lived together openly as man and wife. None of the critics of Richard III in his own time ever queried his marriage. Its invalidity is a modern discovery.”
Now, my problem is this. If no one questioned the marriage back in the fifteenth century, when it would have mattered, why is it such a big deal today?
Even if you don’t have a good opinion of Richard III, this book is still poorly written for all the reasons stated above. Instead of a biography, we have a hack job by a man who should know better.
By Michael Hicks
Reviewed September 2012
Anne Neville, Queen to Richard III by Michael Hicks is listed as a biography, but as such, this book is sorely lacking. It’s true that there is little information available about women in medieval times, even if they were queens. There are a few exceptions, but they are just that – exceptions. So, if you go to this book hoping to learn something new about the life of Anne Neville, you won’t find it. There is a lot about her family, and a lot of speculation, but very few facts when it comes to Anne herself.
I also found it to be a poorly written book. It is filled with assumptions that are based in large part upon the author’s own bias against Richard III. For example, there’s a passage that states the Richard of Gloucester was conceited, as if this character trait is a proven fact. Now, maybe Richard was, and maybe he wasn’t. If Hicks has a reason for believing this, fine, but could he share it with the rest of us? Instead, he simply tells us that this is so without providing any evidence to substantiate this claim. Since Hicks is working from the basic premise that anything Richard did was for ulterior, and usually nefarious, self-promoting reasons, I guess this should not come as any big surprise.
Hicks also makes use of tabloid-worthy phrases which left this reader wondering if she was reading a scholarly biography or the medieval version of a Hollywood tell-all. Phrases like “breeding stock that had ceased to breed,” “shacked up with Duke Richard,” “serial incestor,” and “sex offender” are found throughout the book, and chapter headings make use of similar cheap rhetoric such as “Between Princes” and “Past Her Sell-By Date.”
Then there is what I call the much ado about nothing. Hicks has a big problem with what he sees as the lack of a proper dispensation for the marriage of Richard and Anne, and spends an inordinate amount of time on what, in the end, turns out to be a non-issue.
Anne was Richard’s first cousin, once removed. Her sister was married to Richard’s brother. This, according to Hicks, made their marriage nothing less than incestuous. Really? This didn’t seem to bother anyone back in the 15th century as there is no record of a big to-do made over this. And a quick look through the history books shows that this idea of one pair of siblings marrying another pair was not something new or shocking. Rather, it happened on numerous occasions, usually for reasons of dynasty or inheritance, and demonstrates that Richard marrying his sister-in-law was hardly the first instance of brothers marrying sisters among medieval nobility.
Here’s a look at how Richard and Anne were related:
* They were both descended from Edward III. If I counted my “greats” correctly, Edward III was Richard’s fourth great-grandfather, and Anne’s fifth great-grandfather. Or was it third- and fourth-great grandfather? The point being that yes, they shared a common ancestor.
* Richard’s mother (Cecily Neville) and Anne’s grandfather (Richard, Earl of Salisbury) were brother and sister. This is the first cousin once removed relationship.
* Richard was also third cousin of Anne’s first husband, Edward of Lancaster.
Hicks explains that none of these relationships were proscribed by divine law as found in the book of Leviticus, but by human laws, and that they were routinely dispensed for people of rank, usually (almost always?) for a certain amount of money, like some kind of Papal money making program. He then goes into detail discussing the various degrees of affinity for each of these relationships, and it is obvious that he has spent a great deal of time and energy on this matter.
On page 145, Hicks writes,
“...Canon lawyers were not agreed whether cases covered by Leviticus or similar to those in Leviticus could be dispensed by the Pope. There could be no certainty what would result from an application for a full dispensation that removed all the impediments. Perhaps that was why Richard applied initially for a dispensation that would enable him to marry Anne, but which he must have known did not address all the impediments. Surely here he was cynically manipulating the rules? Moreover, these impediments were exacerbated by blatant cohabitation when aware that the previous dispensation was insufficient. Perhaps the proximity of kinship and this multiplicity of impediments meant that no such dispensation could be forthcoming. Certainly another dispensation was absolutely necessary to validate such a union. Apparently no such dispensation was ever secured. Perhaps none was ever sought.”
Here again, we have more of those pesky assumptions. Do we know for a fact that Richard was deliberately and cynically manipulating the rules, or is this just the author’s take on the situation? Additionally, the word “perhaps” is used three times in this short paragraph, along with a “surely here” and an “apparently.” Looks to me like there is an awful lot of assuming going on, reminding me of the old saying that to assume something makes an ass out of U (you) and me.
The worst thing, though, (for Hicks) is that Richard’s brother George was married to Anne’s sister Isabel, effectively making them brother and sister and related in the first degree of affinity, and thus forbidden by canon (divine) law to marry.
On page 146, Hicks writes,
“John Roes states that Richard was the product of “true matrimony without discontinuance or any defiling in the law.” Richard was thus distinguished, by implication, from Edward V, who had just been dethroned on the grounds that his parents were not properly married and whose father’s legitimacy had also been impugned. Roes had no doubts that Anne and Richard were properly married, that Edward of Middleham was their “son and heir”, and “inheritor to both royal possessions” – that is, to both his parents’ possessions. Anne and Richard accepted as much. Maybe there had been a public wedding of which we know nothing conducted by a priest conned by the papal letter declaratory, unaware of or unconcerned by the extent of their relationship. The undispensed impediments were not publicly known, neither to Rows, nor even (as we shall see) to Crowland. Evidently, Anne and Richard lived together openly as man and wife. None of the critics of Richard III in his own time ever queried his marriage. Its invalidity is a modern discovery.”
Now, my problem is this. If no one questioned the marriage back in the fifteenth century, when it would have mattered, why is it such a big deal today?
Even if you don’t have a good opinion of Richard III, this book is still poorly written for all the reasons stated above. Instead of a biography, we have a hack job by a man who should know better.
February 11, 2014
I tried, I really did. I even went through a lot of effort to get this book. But even though I got past the fact it was endorsed by Alison Weir, who is like the Stephanie Meyer of historians. I couldn't deal with Hick's insufferable tone, nor his inexplicable need to thoroughly analyze Shakespeare's Richard III which has little place in a historical biography. I think Amy Licence's similar biography might be a better use of my time.
October 11, 2020
It's really bad .
Queen Anne Neville had a very interesting life , but there is very less evidence about her, we don't know how the interesting episodes in her life happened or why, so we can just think and theorize and that's exactly what you get from this book , but with ugly and inappropriate comments , you will not get any answer for anything what is very frustrating.
I'm convinced that if you love or hate Richard III you should think very very well before to write a book especially if you pretend to make it not fiction .
I have not problem reading bad facts or comments about Richard III, but would be great if the author could share his evidence or why he thinks like that ,for example he can say that Richard III was a bad king a bad husband ok, maybe he was maybe not , but could he at least share why does he believe that ? There is no evidence of how was their relationship as a couple, so why was he bad on her ?, another example he also said that she died alone and careless , again he doesn't explain why does he believe that, I went direct to check Richard III itinerary and it seems he stayed at her place most of the time she was sick so I truly can't believe on this book .
For me was just a waste of time .
Anne Neville was Queen for a very short period of time and maybe that's why we don't have much evidence and being honest I prefer not to have a book not fiction of her instead having a bad book like this.
Queen Anne Neville had a very interesting life , but there is very less evidence about her, we don't know how the interesting episodes in her life happened or why, so we can just think and theorize and that's exactly what you get from this book , but with ugly and inappropriate comments , you will not get any answer for anything what is very frustrating.
I'm convinced that if you love or hate Richard III you should think very very well before to write a book especially if you pretend to make it not fiction .
I have not problem reading bad facts or comments about Richard III, but would be great if the author could share his evidence or why he thinks like that ,for example he can say that Richard III was a bad king a bad husband ok, maybe he was maybe not , but could he at least share why does he believe that ? There is no evidence of how was their relationship as a couple, so why was he bad on her ?, another example he also said that she died alone and careless , again he doesn't explain why does he believe that, I went direct to check Richard III itinerary and it seems he stayed at her place most of the time she was sick so I truly can't believe on this book .
For me was just a waste of time .
Anne Neville was Queen for a very short period of time and maybe that's why we don't have much evidence and being honest I prefer not to have a book not fiction of her instead having a bad book like this.
April 24, 2015
Since there isn't that much known about Anne, majority of the book is about Wars of the Roses.
You can clearly see that Hicks isn't fan of Richard and certainly doesn't like the idea of the marriage between Richard and Anne. He mentions several times how these days Richard would be registered as sex offender. Because he had sex with Anne when she was minor and because they had such a big age difference. 4 freaking year difference! He also calls him as "serial pedophile" and "serial incestor". He very seriously thins that Richard's marriage to Anne was incestuous, mainly because he married the sister of his sister-in law.
You can clearly see that Hicks isn't fan of Richard and certainly doesn't like the idea of the marriage between Richard and Anne. He mentions several times how these days Richard would be registered as sex offender. Because he had sex with Anne when she was minor and because they had such a big age difference. 4 freaking year difference! He also calls him as "serial pedophile" and "serial incestor". He very seriously thins that Richard's marriage to Anne was incestuous, mainly because he married the sister of his sister-in law.
July 27, 2021
Has ever existed a book called "100 things you might not want to do when writing an historical biography"? If it has, surely Michael Hicks hasn't read it. This book is (or rather should be) a biography of an English Queen, about whom we know very little, having she reigned less than two years: Anne Neville. Hicks claims it's worth writing a book about her, even if we know so little. But in reality this book is pages and pages of nothing, namely the author unproved theories and speculations. The few facts presented are not about Anne, but about her male relatives, the ones who shaped history around her (her father, husband, brother-in-laws etc.).
Besides the book is based mainly on two pillars: one is the very biased vision the author has of Richard III. Richard is bad, Hicks makes this point clear numerous time. Everything Richard did is bad, from breathing to walking to speaking to sleeping. With stunning mental contorsions Hicks can find something negative about every single action of his. He did it in plain way, but sometimes in a subtler way, which is the thing annoyed me most. He's so biased that he calls Richard's accession to the throne "usurpation" every-single-time, even when is not worth remark it again. He then goes on putting out new creative labels on him, like "serial incestor" (that I will address later) or "sex offender", because at 19 he married 16 years old Anne (in Italy and in many European countries this is totally legal even today). So, here's the first pillar: Richard is the baddy, poor Anne is the victim. At least Shakespeare was writing fiction.
The second pillar of the book, which Hicks repeats ad nauseam ,is, unfortunately incorrect. Hicks states that Richard and Anne's marriage was invalid because the dispensation doesn't address the affinity that arose between them when Isabel and George got married. So, according to Hicks they were in fact brother and sister, and since this impediment was not dispensed their union was incestous (that's why the previous "serial incestor"). Well, the whole assumption is simply WRONG and makes at least 3/4 of the books collapse. No such affinity arose between them because of their siblings' marriage. It arose between Anne and George, and between Richard and Isabel, but not between Richard and Anne. Canon Law doesn't admit ignorance. That's why the so called impediment wasn't included in the dispensation for affinity.
Last but not least he's disrespectful even towards his protagonist, labelling Anne as "past her sell by date" or "breeding stock that ceased to breed", which is unacceptable speaking of a woman, in my opinion.
Hicks concludes his book saying that "this book has not added significantly on hard facts". For once I agree with him.
Besides the book is based mainly on two pillars: one is the very biased vision the author has of Richard III. Richard is bad, Hicks makes this point clear numerous time. Everything Richard did is bad, from breathing to walking to speaking to sleeping. With stunning mental contorsions Hicks can find something negative about every single action of his. He did it in plain way, but sometimes in a subtler way, which is the thing annoyed me most. He's so biased that he calls Richard's accession to the throne "usurpation" every-single-time, even when is not worth remark it again. He then goes on putting out new creative labels on him, like "serial incestor" (that I will address later) or "sex offender", because at 19 he married 16 years old Anne (in Italy and in many European countries this is totally legal even today). So, here's the first pillar: Richard is the baddy, poor Anne is the victim. At least Shakespeare was writing fiction.
The second pillar of the book, which Hicks repeats ad nauseam ,is, unfortunately incorrect. Hicks states that Richard and Anne's marriage was invalid because the dispensation doesn't address the affinity that arose between them when Isabel and George got married. So, according to Hicks they were in fact brother and sister, and since this impediment was not dispensed their union was incestous (that's why the previous "serial incestor"). Well, the whole assumption is simply WRONG and makes at least 3/4 of the books collapse. No such affinity arose between them because of their siblings' marriage. It arose between Anne and George, and between Richard and Isabel, but not between Richard and Anne. Canon Law doesn't admit ignorance. That's why the so called impediment wasn't included in the dispensation for affinity.
Last but not least he's disrespectful even towards his protagonist, labelling Anne as "past her sell by date" or "breeding stock that ceased to breed", which is unacceptable speaking of a woman, in my opinion.
Hicks concludes his book saying that "this book has not added significantly on hard facts". For once I agree with him.
April 15, 2015
Anne Neville is one of the shadow queens of England. While we have glimpses of her through records, not enough remains to paint a clear picture of her. What we do know is through the lives of her husbands and father. Traitor, Princess, Wife, Widow, Wife, Mother, Queen. Anne Neville packed quite a bit of living into a short lifespan. She was only 28 years old when she died, but she lived more than most people do today in 80 years.
Through the brief glimpses that we are given, Michael Hicks attempts to paint a picture of this lady of the shadows, but I found myself disappointed. He seemed more interested in making a villain of Richard III than trying to glean out more information on Anne Neville, even painting her as complicit in some of what he called "Richard's schemes" but also Anne herself using Richard to gain what she wanted.
I have been wanting to read this book, but I was completely disappointed with the entire read. I felt that to much of the author's personal bias went into writing this book, therefore the waters were muddy even before anyone tries to pick history apart and paint a more thorough picture.
I would not really recommend out this read. While some personal bias is fine, everyone has it, this author goes above and beyond, making the read completely un-enjoyable.
Through the brief glimpses that we are given, Michael Hicks attempts to paint a picture of this lady of the shadows, but I found myself disappointed. He seemed more interested in making a villain of Richard III than trying to glean out more information on Anne Neville, even painting her as complicit in some of what he called "Richard's schemes" but also Anne herself using Richard to gain what she wanted.
I have been wanting to read this book, but I was completely disappointed with the entire read. I felt that to much of the author's personal bias went into writing this book, therefore the waters were muddy even before anyone tries to pick history apart and paint a more thorough picture.
I would not really recommend out this read. While some personal bias is fine, everyone has it, this author goes above and beyond, making the read completely un-enjoyable.
January 14, 2019
This book is understandably short, considering how little we know about Anne Neville. Unfortunately, even those few pages were unbearable.
Hicks' sources are scanty, and he tends to make up facts as he goes. His biases colour his judgments, and obscure history. His analyses are not well thought-out, and he has a tendency of making random comments that caught me off guard. He declares Anne's marriage invalid, and her husband a pedophile. Considering medieval standards, 17 was a good age for marriage. I find it curious he did not declare Prince Edward a pedophile for marrying her when she was 14 .
I expected better from a historian.
Hicks' sources are scanty, and he tends to make up facts as he goes. His biases colour his judgments, and obscure history. His analyses are not well thought-out, and he has a tendency of making random comments that caught me off guard. He declares Anne's marriage invalid, and her husband a pedophile. Considering medieval standards, 17 was a good age for marriage. I find it curious he did not declare Prince Edward a pedophile for marrying her when she was 14 .
I expected better from a historian.
April 17, 2015
Hicks wrote a book about Anne Neville when nobody even knew, or cared, who she was: no Gregory trilogies, no TWQ, no Hollow Crown episode in the making, blablah. I appreciate that.
But I still dropped the book.
Why? Because we must aknowledge that the information we have on Anne Neville could be written behind a stamp, with some room left too. Bringing myself to read and endless list of "we cannot know", "we cannot say", "not recorded", is frustrating, and I'm pretty sure it must be frustrating to write as well.
But I still dropped the book.
Why? Because we must aknowledge that the information we have on Anne Neville could be written behind a stamp, with some room left too. Bringing myself to read and endless list of "we cannot know", "we cannot say", "not recorded", is frustrating, and I'm pretty sure it must be frustrating to write as well.
March 22, 2021
If I could give zero stars, I would. This was the worst book I have read so far and I have read many a bad one. It is not only filled with "facts"™️ (i.e. the author's opinion/interpretation), it's sometimes even plain insulting to the people involved.
Not only does Michael Hicks miss no opportunity at blackening Richard III, he also fails to build his arguments on proper evidence. Yes, there is very little evidence of Anne Neville, much less her thoughts and feelings, however his speculations really are ludicrous at times... *sadly sighs in Ricardian*
The way he portrays historical figures, which were actual people of flesh and blood, with flaws and feelings and fears and wishes, is entirely black or white. With Richard being the monster, tyrant, murderer (he repeats this five times in one! page! to really drive the point home) and Anne Neville the pawn, the victim, without a will of her own, tricked into a marriage by a persuasive and "predatory seducer" (Hicks's words) who only lusted after her inheritance and apparently her body.
Hicks also says that Richard of Gloucester helped to kill Anne's father which is just frustrating to read. Warwick has betrayed Richard's own brother, to whom he was ultimately loyal. Warwick was a traitor. However, even if he wouldn't have fallen in battle and would have been tried by Richard in his capacity as Constable of England, who says Richard would have liked to do that? It would have been his duty, but he was human and Warwick had been his mentor, teaching him what he needed to know in order to become a knight. He may even have been a parental figure for Richard and I believe that he was quite conflicted about Warwick's death. And concerning the death of her first husband... it is more likely that Edward of Lancaster died in battle at the hands of the men of the duke of Clarence, as one source states. And even if Richard had a hand in it, again Edward of Lancaster was considered a traitor and a threat to Richard and his family. I don't think Edward of Lancaster would have spared Richard either if it were the other way around. We shouldn't apply modern standards to judge late medieval society.
Hicks introduces the "sex offender" and "pedophile" to the long list of accusations against Richard III, which had me completely flabbergasted. Hicks tried to prove this by saying that Anne was a minor when marrying him at 15 years old, and while she might be considered as such by modern standards (which we really shouldn't apply to judge history) Richard was 19 when they married. At age 15 you're not a child anymore and she has been married before, so she probably knew about sex when she married him and that it would have been expected of her in a medieval society, especially being a duchess. Also, I don't know about the laws in England nowadays, but in Germany consensual intercourse between a 15 and a 19 year old is perfectly legal!
But not only that, apparently taking her to sanctuary equals rape in the eyes of Michael Hicks, like... what the hell?
And in other instances he suddenly claims that Anne married Richard out of "sexual starvation". Because women can apparently only think with their uterus...
But it is only until later that he gets plain insulting not just to Richard III, but to Anne Neville as well, describing her death as "right on the cue" and even titling a chapter "Past her Sell-By Date". Frankly, I think that is hugely disrespectful. She is a woman, not a yogurt.Yes, she may have ultimately failed in providing an heir to succeed Richard to the throne. However, she was of ill health and Richard openly mourned his wife, so clearly she was not just an object to throw into a bin like an expired yogurt! Nevertheless, Hicks goes out of his way to make one believe Richard intended to cast Anne aside to marry his niece, Elizabeth of York, which in my opinion would have been suicide of his own reputation and credibility!! Believe what you will of Richard III, he certainly wasn't that stupid! If the rumours of that intended marriage were enough to undo him in front of public opinion, it is pretty obvious what would have happened if he'd actually done it. It wod have been incestuous and it would have undermined his claim to the throne and his credibility if he would have even considered marrying the sister of the Princes in the Tower (I don't believe he killed the princes, but he did declare them and their sisters illegitimate, and I think it would be unwise, as king, to marry the bastard daughter of his brother, no less). But not only that he argues that Richard actually considered such a marriage, no, he also says there are "grounds to believe" that he actually poisoned his wife in order to do so. Which is non sensical, given that Hicks went out of the way to explain how Richard's and Anne's marriage has been null and void the entire time and therefore non existent, but oh well.
All in all, 1000% do not recommend. As a history student, our professors are teaching us how to become a good historian and Michael Hicks ain't one. This book is not professional, whatsoever. We all have our biases, and as long as they can properly substantiated by facts and evidence, that's fine. There's no historical truth and much is open to interpretation. However, this book is dripping with bias à la Shakespeare and Tudor historians.
I am very very fond of Anne Neville and it hurts how this book portrays her as what everyone portrays her as.. eclipsed by the men in her life, a pawn, a victim, pushed around by her father and later her husband, something I just cannot believe. It is sad to read a book dedicated to her being insulting, degrading, bordering on sexist and entirely focused on her "evil monster of a Shakespearean villain" and how she made a huge mistake by marrying him, just like Shakespeare portrayed. Who is Michael Hicks to judge her decision? She knew Richard, she was intelligent, daughter of a very shrewd and ambitious man. We should stop taking away any agency she might have had in deciding her own fate, even if she did it in obscurity and now, unfortunately, unknown to us.
Not only does Michael Hicks miss no opportunity at blackening Richard III, he also fails to build his arguments on proper evidence. Yes, there is very little evidence of Anne Neville, much less her thoughts and feelings, however his speculations really are ludicrous at times... *sadly sighs in Ricardian*
The way he portrays historical figures, which were actual people of flesh and blood, with flaws and feelings and fears and wishes, is entirely black or white. With Richard being the monster, tyrant, murderer (he repeats this five times in one! page! to really drive the point home) and Anne Neville the pawn, the victim, without a will of her own, tricked into a marriage by a persuasive and "predatory seducer" (Hicks's words) who only lusted after her inheritance and apparently her body.
Hicks also says that Richard of Gloucester helped to kill Anne's father which is just frustrating to read. Warwick has betrayed Richard's own brother, to whom he was ultimately loyal. Warwick was a traitor. However, even if he wouldn't have fallen in battle and would have been tried by Richard in his capacity as Constable of England, who says Richard would have liked to do that? It would have been his duty, but he was human and Warwick had been his mentor, teaching him what he needed to know in order to become a knight. He may even have been a parental figure for Richard and I believe that he was quite conflicted about Warwick's death. And concerning the death of her first husband... it is more likely that Edward of Lancaster died in battle at the hands of the men of the duke of Clarence, as one source states. And even if Richard had a hand in it, again Edward of Lancaster was considered a traitor and a threat to Richard and his family. I don't think Edward of Lancaster would have spared Richard either if it were the other way around. We shouldn't apply modern standards to judge late medieval society.
Hicks introduces the "sex offender" and "pedophile" to the long list of accusations against Richard III, which had me completely flabbergasted. Hicks tried to prove this by saying that Anne was a minor when marrying him at 15 years old, and while she might be considered as such by modern standards (which we really shouldn't apply to judge history) Richard was 19 when they married. At age 15 you're not a child anymore and she has been married before, so she probably knew about sex when she married him and that it would have been expected of her in a medieval society, especially being a duchess. Also, I don't know about the laws in England nowadays, but in Germany consensual intercourse between a 15 and a 19 year old is perfectly legal!
But not only that, apparently taking her to sanctuary equals rape in the eyes of Michael Hicks, like... what the hell?
And in other instances he suddenly claims that Anne married Richard out of "sexual starvation". Because women can apparently only think with their uterus...
But it is only until later that he gets plain insulting not just to Richard III, but to Anne Neville as well, describing her death as "right on the cue" and even titling a chapter "Past her Sell-By Date". Frankly, I think that is hugely disrespectful. She is a woman, not a yogurt.Yes, she may have ultimately failed in providing an heir to succeed Richard to the throne. However, she was of ill health and Richard openly mourned his wife, so clearly she was not just an object to throw into a bin like an expired yogurt! Nevertheless, Hicks goes out of his way to make one believe Richard intended to cast Anne aside to marry his niece, Elizabeth of York, which in my opinion would have been suicide of his own reputation and credibility!! Believe what you will of Richard III, he certainly wasn't that stupid! If the rumours of that intended marriage were enough to undo him in front of public opinion, it is pretty obvious what would have happened if he'd actually done it. It wod have been incestuous and it would have undermined his claim to the throne and his credibility if he would have even considered marrying the sister of the Princes in the Tower (I don't believe he killed the princes, but he did declare them and their sisters illegitimate, and I think it would be unwise, as king, to marry the bastard daughter of his brother, no less). But not only that he argues that Richard actually considered such a marriage, no, he also says there are "grounds to believe" that he actually poisoned his wife in order to do so. Which is non sensical, given that Hicks went out of the way to explain how Richard's and Anne's marriage has been null and void the entire time and therefore non existent, but oh well.
All in all, 1000% do not recommend. As a history student, our professors are teaching us how to become a good historian and Michael Hicks ain't one. This book is not professional, whatsoever. We all have our biases, and as long as they can properly substantiated by facts and evidence, that's fine. There's no historical truth and much is open to interpretation. However, this book is dripping with bias à la Shakespeare and Tudor historians.
I am very very fond of Anne Neville and it hurts how this book portrays her as what everyone portrays her as.. eclipsed by the men in her life, a pawn, a victim, pushed around by her father and later her husband, something I just cannot believe. It is sad to read a book dedicated to her being insulting, degrading, bordering on sexist and entirely focused on her "evil monster of a Shakespearean villain" and how she made a huge mistake by marrying him, just like Shakespeare portrayed. Who is Michael Hicks to judge her decision? She knew Richard, she was intelligent, daughter of a very shrewd and ambitious man. We should stop taking away any agency she might have had in deciding her own fate, even if she did it in obscurity and now, unfortunately, unknown to us.
May 2, 2018
As there aren't really any records for the subject matter, a lot of this book seemed to be guesswork. I did, though, find some of Richard's "manoeuvres" with her estates interesting. I love Richard but I do realise he was not perfect.
March 11, 2021
This is one of the worst biographies I have ever read, and not because of the (regrettably) little extant source material that we have for Anne Neville. I firmly believe it is possible to give her a biography. Hicks not only makes questionable comparisons and odd word choices (at one point telling us that in the modern day, Richard III would be labeled as a "sex offender" but not giving such a description to other people in similar marital situations and later saying that Anne - who, we are told, had "plenty of sex" - was "shacking up" with Richard who, by the way, is a "serial incestor."), but also his interpretations and analysis come across more like personal bias and conjecture.
I was not remotely surprised to see such an anti-Richard bias in this book given that it was for a series headed by Alison Weir and the pull quote chosen for the back cover promised such a treatment, but I thought I would at least get a balanced or fact-backed piece from a historian who has been around as long as Hicks. I am fine with anti-Richard pieces when the person backs up their reasons for it, so that concept on its own didn't bother me. Plus, I'm interested in Anne's life and given how it is pretty much the only biography dedicated to her out there, I was excited for it. Anne deserved better than this work. It's actually embarrassing at points. (See the Epilogue where Hicks says modern people don't understand arranged marriages , "hence we encourage and rejoice in those daughters of Asian immigrants who repudiate spouses designated for them and marry for love." What? Why is this what he decided to say? Why did no editor cut it?) The word "probably" might appear more than any other word that isn't a conjunction and repetitions abound in ways that make it seem like Hicks is just trying to hit a word count.
I should have side-eyed this book when I read the preface and Hicks said he didn't think writing a biography of Anne was possible. I didn't though. My side-eyeing it began when he felt the need to tell us why studying women's history is important (in 2007!) as if it needs to be justified and then when he spends way, way too much time talking about Shakespeare's Richard III (which he circles back to ad nauseum to either tell us Shakespeare got it wrong or maybe he got it right, depending on the moment.)
On the very last page Hicks tells us "this book has not added significantly to the hard facts about Anne's life and about her age." Worse than that, it is actively disappointing because it has moments where it could be great (see his description of Richard and Anne's coronation) but falls beyond flat to just...bad. Give it a hard pass and hope she gets a better treatment from someone else.
I was not remotely surprised to see such an anti-Richard bias in this book given that it was for a series headed by Alison Weir and the pull quote chosen for the back cover promised such a treatment, but I thought I would at least get a balanced or fact-backed piece from a historian who has been around as long as Hicks. I am fine with anti-Richard pieces when the person backs up their reasons for it, so that concept on its own didn't bother me. Plus, I'm interested in Anne's life and given how it is pretty much the only biography dedicated to her out there, I was excited for it. Anne deserved better than this work. It's actually embarrassing at points. (See the Epilogue where Hicks says modern people don't understand arranged marriages , "hence we encourage and rejoice in those daughters of Asian immigrants who repudiate spouses designated for them and marry for love." What? Why is this what he decided to say? Why did no editor cut it?) The word "probably" might appear more than any other word that isn't a conjunction and repetitions abound in ways that make it seem like Hicks is just trying to hit a word count.
I should have side-eyed this book when I read the preface and Hicks said he didn't think writing a biography of Anne was possible. I didn't though. My side-eyeing it began when he felt the need to tell us why studying women's history is important (in 2007!) as if it needs to be justified and then when he spends way, way too much time talking about Shakespeare's Richard III (which he circles back to ad nauseum to either tell us Shakespeare got it wrong or maybe he got it right, depending on the moment.)
On the very last page Hicks tells us "this book has not added significantly to the hard facts about Anne's life and about her age." Worse than that, it is actively disappointing because it has moments where it could be great (see his description of Richard and Anne's coronation) but falls beyond flat to just...bad. Give it a hard pass and hope she gets a better treatment from someone else.
October 27, 2014
A terrible history/biography in regards to the fact that it is full of heavy bias against Richard III and full of assumptions.
May 3, 2025
This is meant to be a biography of Anne Neville, King Richard III’s wife. She was married twice, had one son with Richard (but that son died before she did), and she only lived to 28 years old. Her father, Warwick, was also known as “The Kingmaker”. He married both his daughters to two brothers in line to inherit the crown.
Like with many women historical figures, including high-ranking ones, there is very little information to go on, so there are many gaps in time and a lot of guesses as to where she might have been and what she might have been doing, based on what others (Richard, her father…) - that is, the men around her – were doing or where they were. I feel like this is more of a history of the time and place she was alive than an actual biography. I should expect it by now, but it’s still a bit disappointing. On the other hand, it’s also a reminder of some of the people/characters and events of the time period.
Like with many women historical figures, including high-ranking ones, there is very little information to go on, so there are many gaps in time and a lot of guesses as to where she might have been and what she might have been doing, based on what others (Richard, her father…) - that is, the men around her – were doing or where they were. I feel like this is more of a history of the time and place she was alive than an actual biography. I should expect it by now, but it’s still a bit disappointing. On the other hand, it’s also a reminder of some of the people/characters and events of the time period.
February 19, 2012
A Forgotten Queen.
Anne Neville, duchess of Gloucester and later consort of Richard III is, with Berengaria of Navarre, one of the least-known queens of England. She has been the subject of many historical novels for the part she played in the Wars of the Roses, and famously, for the feud between Gloucester and his brother Clarence over the Warwick inheritance she shared with Clarence's wife, her sister Isobel. She allegedly was hidden by Clarence from Gloucester to prevent him from marrying her and claiming the inheritance. It is a romantic tale, to be sure, and Mr. Hicks gives the reader a more pragmatic, less victimized picture of Anne. Yes, she was a pawn of her father in her first marriage to Prince Edward of Wales, but as a widow, she had a greater say in her choice of husbands. Mr. Hicks posits that she made the decision as well as Gloucester, to marry him. Whether it was a love match is unknown. We know that Anne and Richard were raised together at Middleham, so they were not strangers. This is a book that looks at Anne as an heiress, duchess and queen with a mind of her own and looked over by the chroniclers because she was a woman, and she was overshadowed by the stronger personalities of her day. Her life was short - she died at 28 - and there is virtually nothing written about her, save mentions in the extant histories and official records, but the author fleshes out perhaps one of the most important women of her day, and an intriguing woman at that, not the swooning, victim courted by Richard of Gloucester, later Richard III over a grave as depicted in Shakespeare's epic, if epically inaccurate, play. This was a fascinating book to read and I am glad it's available as an e-book. It's in my permanent collection.
Do read this book.
Anne Neville, duchess of Gloucester and later consort of Richard III is, with Berengaria of Navarre, one of the least-known queens of England. She has been the subject of many historical novels for the part she played in the Wars of the Roses, and famously, for the feud between Gloucester and his brother Clarence over the Warwick inheritance she shared with Clarence's wife, her sister Isobel. She allegedly was hidden by Clarence from Gloucester to prevent him from marrying her and claiming the inheritance. It is a romantic tale, to be sure, and Mr. Hicks gives the reader a more pragmatic, less victimized picture of Anne. Yes, she was a pawn of her father in her first marriage to Prince Edward of Wales, but as a widow, she had a greater say in her choice of husbands. Mr. Hicks posits that she made the decision as well as Gloucester, to marry him. Whether it was a love match is unknown. We know that Anne and Richard were raised together at Middleham, so they were not strangers. This is a book that looks at Anne as an heiress, duchess and queen with a mind of her own and looked over by the chroniclers because she was a woman, and she was overshadowed by the stronger personalities of her day. Her life was short - she died at 28 - and there is virtually nothing written about her, save mentions in the extant histories and official records, but the author fleshes out perhaps one of the most important women of her day, and an intriguing woman at that, not the swooning, victim courted by Richard of Gloucester, later Richard III over a grave as depicted in Shakespeare's epic, if epically inaccurate, play. This was a fascinating book to read and I am glad it's available as an e-book. It's in my permanent collection.
Do read this book.
July 25, 2015
The first part of this book is really badly written and doesn't get much better. Instead of a straight forward history of Anne Neville, the author jumps all over the place, rushing forward to link each person to Anne half a dozen times and then jumping back, instead of the more usual genealogical rundown. Very confusing.
Also the author at times reaaaalllly reaches for something to say about his subject. Not that surprising really; this is part of a series of forgotten queens after all. But at times it seems every other word is 'perhaps', 'possibly' or 'maybe'. Generally that can be okay. Instead you can give an account of the times Anne lived through, paying attention to the people she would've interacted with, contemporary customs, lifestyle, etc. Not an account of the Wars of the Roses per se, but at least a run through of events so we know why Anne was in a place at a certain time and things were done a certain way and so on. Unfortunately the author is so intent on keeping his attentions firmly fixed on Anne that he completely removes her from the context. Her son is barely mentioned for example, except in terms of describing Anne's 'thoughts and feelings' about his death, and even then things are vague. Her husband's reign is given barely a paragraph or two.
To sum up: I didn't know much about Anne Neville before, and not much has changed. I know the author didn't think the marriage to Richard III was valid, and that's pretty much it.
Also the author at times reaaaalllly reaches for something to say about his subject. Not that surprising really; this is part of a series of forgotten queens after all. But at times it seems every other word is 'perhaps', 'possibly' or 'maybe'. Generally that can be okay. Instead you can give an account of the times Anne lived through, paying attention to the people she would've interacted with, contemporary customs, lifestyle, etc. Not an account of the Wars of the Roses per se, but at least a run through of events so we know why Anne was in a place at a certain time and things were done a certain way and so on. Unfortunately the author is so intent on keeping his attentions firmly fixed on Anne that he completely removes her from the context. Her son is barely mentioned for example, except in terms of describing Anne's 'thoughts and feelings' about his death, and even then things are vague. Her husband's reign is given barely a paragraph or two.
To sum up: I didn't know much about Anne Neville before, and not much has changed. I know the author didn't think the marriage to Richard III was valid, and that's pretty much it.
Want to read
October 29, 2014In addition to killing her first husband
Who was an enemy of the Yorkist cause as well as the Lancastrian heir.
...this fascinating new biography also reveals how Richard also helped kill her father...
Who was a traitor and sided with the Lancastrians.
father-in-law
Who was the enemy king.
and brother-in-law.
Who was an idiot (see father above) and had an innocent woman executed.
Based on this, should I read this book?
Who was an enemy of the Yorkist cause as well as the Lancastrian heir.
...this fascinating new biography also reveals how Richard also helped kill her father...
Who was a traitor and sided with the Lancastrians.
father-in-law
Who was the enemy king.
and brother-in-law.
Who was an idiot (see father above) and had an innocent woman executed.
Based on this, should I read this book?
April 22, 2018
I was absolutely at a loss as to how I am going to rate and review this book. I quickly tried to scan through a few other reviews and found two common factors in what everybody was saying:
1) This biography shouldn't even have been written. The author openly acknowledges that there are practically no historical sources to draw on when painting a picture of the life of Anne Neville.
2) They throw a lot of heat on the author for not being a fan of Richard III.
I fully agree with the first point and disagree with the second. Richard III was a bad king. He was a bad person. I have no problem with an author making moral judgments or sharing opinions on the subject they are writing about when it is warranted.
That said, I do believe the author did the best they could when responding to their publisher's request to write a biography on the life of Anne Neville. In reality, this is more a book around the life of Queen Anne. She is a silhouette in the middle of the portrait he drew of the War of the Roses. In that respect, I appreciate the unique approach to a very well covered topic.
1) This biography shouldn't even have been written. The author openly acknowledges that there are practically no historical sources to draw on when painting a picture of the life of Anne Neville.
2) They throw a lot of heat on the author for not being a fan of Richard III.
I fully agree with the first point and disagree with the second. Richard III was a bad king. He was a bad person. I have no problem with an author making moral judgments or sharing opinions on the subject they are writing about when it is warranted.
That said, I do believe the author did the best they could when responding to their publisher's request to write a biography on the life of Anne Neville. In reality, this is more a book around the life of Queen Anne. She is a silhouette in the middle of the portrait he drew of the War of the Roses. In that respect, I appreciate the unique approach to a very well covered topic.
September 8, 2019
The first chapter is an oddly defense argument about why the history of women should be studied as well as men. I mean, I know society’s been regressing lately, but the chapter has this weird 1971 vibe to it. Also, it gives way to much space to Shakespeare’s treatment of his fictionalized version of Anne Neville, which is like starting a biography of Abraham Lincoln with an character analysis of how he was written up in Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Slayer.
The next chapter almost gets to the factual Anne Neville, but first Hicks attempts to explain the thorny bush of Anne’s family tree, which leave the reader more confused, rather than less. So. Many. Weddings! Still, I got it that the Neville’s were rich and proud with royal connections, which left them pretty entitled – both literally and figuratively. And also that Rome had a real racket going with the business of grating dispensations to marry those “forbidden” by being too closely related – too close as in 6th cousins. >eye roll<
We finally, finally, finally get to Anne herself and the part that we know best about her - that she was married twice - and we get a very long lecture on inheritance law and real estate and MORE about the being related in the whatever degree.
Hicks also lectures the audience about how the 15th century was different than the 21st century and it was common to see married teenagers and there was nothing unusual about that, repeated several times. OMG, we get it!
A lot of drama is skipped over to focus on land deals, and Hicks gets more defensive at the end about how little information there was about Anne, and I was pretty disappointed.
November 16, 2019
I cannot work out who this is for. Not historians surely nor lovers of serious literature . Hicks writes about Anne ‘shaking up’ with Richard. He tells us little other than that we know little because where are few sources relating to Anne. But he makes little use of what there are and little inference from those of the people around her. Instead he spends most of the book detailing the Warwick inheritance. I kept reading hoping to learn something but it never happened. I suggest saving your money and reading one of the numerous books about Richard instead and get some idea of her life from them.
February 21, 2020
Total page-turner. I don't suscribe to all of Hick's odd theories about the supposed invalidity of Anne and Richard's marriage, but still a great book!
February 25, 2023
We got a biography of Anne Neville but at what cost?
I appreciate that Anne is a historical figure we have very little information on and I think that Hicks does a good job at speculating possible dates for the important events in her life which have been lost (such as both her marriages, her time in sanctuary and the birth of her son).
However, I am absolutely disgusted by Hick's casual misogyny in this book. In his opening chapter he states that there has been a "relative epidemic of studies of the late medieval queens". He uses the term epidemic as if this were a bad thing but I guess that's what to expect from a historian who also has to reassure that women did in fact existence in this period. Like obviously women existed then Michael, women weren't created in 1999.
I also believe he is down right cruel in the way he describes Anne Neville. He describes this women who lived and suffered great tragedy in her life as "past her sell by date" and constantly refers to her as a failure because her only child died.
Hicks spends more time discussing his theory that Richard deliberately sought the incorrect type of papal dispensation for their marriage in some sort of Machiavellian plot that comes to literally nothing than he does on Anne's illness. He turns Anne's death into a footnote in Richard's villainy in her own damn biography!
This book was published as part of a larger series on England's forgotten queens and I just wish they had chosen a different historian who would have treated Anne with the dignity and respect she deserves. No one forced Hick's to write this but it sure does feel like it as he laments on "how sad the titillating possibility that Richard's mistress was wet-nurse to his legitimate son cannot apply". Get a room Michael and then don't come back out.
I appreciate that Anne is a historical figure we have very little information on and I think that Hicks does a good job at speculating possible dates for the important events in her life which have been lost (such as both her marriages, her time in sanctuary and the birth of her son).
However, I am absolutely disgusted by Hick's casual misogyny in this book. In his opening chapter he states that there has been a "relative epidemic of studies of the late medieval queens". He uses the term epidemic as if this were a bad thing but I guess that's what to expect from a historian who also has to reassure that women did in fact existence in this period. Like obviously women existed then Michael, women weren't created in 1999.
I also believe he is down right cruel in the way he describes Anne Neville. He describes this women who lived and suffered great tragedy in her life as "past her sell by date" and constantly refers to her as a failure because her only child died.
Hicks spends more time discussing his theory that Richard deliberately sought the incorrect type of papal dispensation for their marriage in some sort of Machiavellian plot that comes to literally nothing than he does on Anne's illness. He turns Anne's death into a footnote in Richard's villainy in her own damn biography!
This book was published as part of a larger series on England's forgotten queens and I just wish they had chosen a different historian who would have treated Anne with the dignity and respect she deserves. No one forced Hick's to write this but it sure does feel like it as he laments on "how sad the titillating possibility that Richard's mistress was wet-nurse to his legitimate son cannot apply". Get a room Michael and then don't come back out.
June 11, 2021
*WARNING - You're about to head into Spoiler Town, although technically not as this is non-fiction... lets call it Education City*
Well, this was definitely the most unique historical biography I've ever read!
Personally, I love a good historical biography, especially if its to do with the English monarchy, most notably the Wars of the Roses and the Tudor periods. With famous monarchs such as Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, and Richard III heralding from this period of time, the amount of biographies that have been published is quite insane, thanks to the wealth of primary and secondary sources that can be found on these famous monarchs.
But what if there are little to no sources on a historical figure?
That is the problem that Michael Hicks expertly tackles in this short but sweet book, ironically short due to the little detailed sources Hicks has to work on. As a result, the vast majority of this book is speculation, wondering how Anne reacted to deaths in her family or her second marriage to the infamous Richard III.
Hicks acknowledges this in the epilogue, however: "This book has not added significantly to the hard facts about Anne's life and about her age. What it has shown is what these events mean or may mean - the implications, the options, and wherever possible the choices that were made and Anne's role within them."
And that there reveals the paradox at the heart of this book. Anne Neville, wife, mother, princess, duchess, queen, has long been neglected by history, deserving a place in the spotlight at long last. But will that be the real Anne Neville who we shine the light on, or a caricature of her we've pieced together from the limited resources we have?
Well, this was definitely the most unique historical biography I've ever read!
Personally, I love a good historical biography, especially if its to do with the English monarchy, most notably the Wars of the Roses and the Tudor periods. With famous monarchs such as Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, and Richard III heralding from this period of time, the amount of biographies that have been published is quite insane, thanks to the wealth of primary and secondary sources that can be found on these famous monarchs.
But what if there are little to no sources on a historical figure?
That is the problem that Michael Hicks expertly tackles in this short but sweet book, ironically short due to the little detailed sources Hicks has to work on. As a result, the vast majority of this book is speculation, wondering how Anne reacted to deaths in her family or her second marriage to the infamous Richard III.
Hicks acknowledges this in the epilogue, however: "This book has not added significantly to the hard facts about Anne's life and about her age. What it has shown is what these events mean or may mean - the implications, the options, and wherever possible the choices that were made and Anne's role within them."
And that there reveals the paradox at the heart of this book. Anne Neville, wife, mother, princess, duchess, queen, has long been neglected by history, deserving a place in the spotlight at long last. But will that be the real Anne Neville who we shine the light on, or a caricature of her we've pieced together from the limited resources we have?
October 4, 2022
Mm. It's bad!
The first chapter spends its first half talking about Shakespeare's Lady Anne as if it was fact and the second chapter insisting medieval women are worthy of study, which is a wierd tone to take for a book published in 2007.
The second chapter - dealing with the context of Anne's ancestry and her childhood - are pretty much the only things worth reading in this text, because once Richard, Duke of Gloucester, gets involved, it goes immediately downhill into the garbage.
Clearly Michael Hicks has major beef with Richard, because immediately the book becomes a collection of wild conjectures, blatant assumptions, and buck-wild sentences to read in a biography. A modern historian searching the Vatican couldn't find an appropriate dispensation for Richard and Anne's marriage, so clearly Richard must not have gotten one because he was Evil™ and a Serial Incestor™ (no, seriously, Michael Hicks says that exact phrase several times) and an egotist who didn't care about women! Nevermind that contemporarily their marriage was accepted and no one really questioned its validity, and that it's more likely that a 15th-century document got lost. No! Anne's marriage was a lie!!!
I wish I was exaggerating, but I'm not. And the entire rest of the book is like that.
I do think it's possible to write a good biography of Anne Neville. It would take a lot of work and very meticulous scholarship, but I do think it's possible. This is not it. I'm hoping that Routledge's Lives of Royal Women series dedicates a volume to Anne, because I would really love to read a more scholarly and objective biography. She lived a remarkable life.
The first chapter spends its first half talking about Shakespeare's Lady Anne as if it was fact and the second chapter insisting medieval women are worthy of study, which is a wierd tone to take for a book published in 2007.
The second chapter - dealing with the context of Anne's ancestry and her childhood - are pretty much the only things worth reading in this text, because once Richard, Duke of Gloucester, gets involved, it goes immediately downhill into the garbage.
Clearly Michael Hicks has major beef with Richard, because immediately the book becomes a collection of wild conjectures, blatant assumptions, and buck-wild sentences to read in a biography. A modern historian searching the Vatican couldn't find an appropriate dispensation for Richard and Anne's marriage, so clearly Richard must not have gotten one because he was Evil™ and a Serial Incestor™ (no, seriously, Michael Hicks says that exact phrase several times) and an egotist who didn't care about women! Nevermind that contemporarily their marriage was accepted and no one really questioned its validity, and that it's more likely that a 15th-century document got lost. No! Anne's marriage was a lie!!!
I wish I was exaggerating, but I'm not. And the entire rest of the book is like that.
I do think it's possible to write a good biography of Anne Neville. It would take a lot of work and very meticulous scholarship, but I do think it's possible. This is not it. I'm hoping that Routledge's Lives of Royal Women series dedicates a volume to Anne, because I would really love to read a more scholarly and objective biography. She lived a remarkable life.
May 21, 2024
This book did nothing to clarify the life of Anne Neville. Moreover the pompous pseudo-academic style of authorship sent me into paroxysms of indignation. Hicks makes judgments on so many unknowns - he purports to be an 'expert' but sadly his writing is tainted with outrageous bias. Richard of Gloucester remains a violent, venomous hunchback, who mercilessly slays all in opposition (Hicks uses Shakespeare's tainted portrait to good effect). So Anne Neville remains an absolute unknown - so why bother making this feeble attempt. I had to fling the book aside before the half-way point. I'm a generally tolerant and forgiving reader, but this was genuinely one of the worst books I've ever spent money on. No - please - don't waste time and expense on this utter garbage.
April 23, 2019
A good example of how to write the biography of a subject for whom there are almost no relevant primary sources. Contextualize! Contextualize! As Hicks writes in the last paragraph: "The gaps, actually enormous gulfs, are insurmountable. There is just too much we cannot know. . . This book has not added significantly to the hard facts about Anne's life and about her age."
But Hicks does portray Anne Neville in the context of her age, and in reading this short pithy book, I came to understand that Anne was almost certainly a lot more complicated than the wispy nonentity that she is presented as being in Shakespeare's "Richard III."
But Hicks does portray Anne Neville in the context of her age, and in reading this short pithy book, I came to understand that Anne was almost certainly a lot more complicated than the wispy nonentity that she is presented as being in Shakespeare's "Richard III."
May 4, 2018
A interesting biography limited by the lack of information available. I found Michael Hick's comments on the attitudes to morality at the time very interesting. Henry VIII and Katherine of Aragon had similar problems and the confusion over different types of dispensations given by the Pope are intriguing.
June 14, 2022
I'm not sure I have anything good to say about this book. It's poorly written and despite being a biography veers wildly between unsubstantiated speculation and repeated explanations of why there's little to know about Anne.
July 3, 2018
An interesting view on Anne Neville, much is done with the little that is known about her
Displaying 1 - 30 of 43 reviews