What do you think?
Rate this book
Jasper Tudor: Dynasty Maker
The Wars of the Roses were a bitter and bloody dispute between the rival Plantagenet Houses of York and Lancaster. Only one man, Jasper Tudor, the Lancastrian half-brother to Henry VI, fought from the first battle at St Albans in 1455 to the last at Stoke Field in 1487 and lived to forge a new dynasty – the Tudors. Fighting the Yorkists, rallying the Lancastrians and spending years in exile with his nephew, the future first Tudor monarch, Henry VII, Jasper was the mainspring for continued Lancastrian defiance. He was twenty-four years old in his first battle and fifty-three when he won at Bosworth Field in 1485. Now he could style himself ‘the high and mighty prince, Jasper, brother and uncle of kings, duke of Bedford and earl of Pembroke’. Without the heroic Jasper Tudor there could have been no Tudor dynasty. This is the first biography of the real ‘kingmaker’ of British history.
400 pages, Paperback
First published August 6, 2014
1 person is currently reading
236 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
October 27, 2019
This is one of the most poorly written books I have ever read. I regret buying it, but I was in a hurry in the bookstore and didn't have time to do my usual thorough sampling before purchasing. Having spent the money, I was determined to finish it, but it was a slog.
I bought the book because it seemed to offer a different perspective on the Wars of the Roses and the rise of the Tudors, by focusing on Jasper Tudor, the uncle of Henry VII. I've come across Jasper repeatedly in other books, but always as a secondary figure, so I was interested to learn more about him beyond the basic details of his life. Unfortunately, this book did not deliver. Despite its title, it revealed nothing new about Jasper. In fact, it hardly seemed to focus on Jasper at all most of the time, and there were long sections where he wasn't even mentioned, or was mentioned only very superficially in passing. Of course it makes sense to discuss events in which Jasper did not take direct part if they affected his life or are necessary for an understanding of the overall history, but Breverton goes into far too much detail about people and events that are tangential at best. As another reviewer wrote, it seems as if he just cut and pasted a bunch of information in the hopes that someone might find it interesting. Much of this information is of little relevance to Jasper's life or even to the history as a whole.
The book's flaws are so numerous that it doesn't appear to have been edited at all. Breverton jumps around chronologically, mentioning people and events in passing and only introducing or explaining them properly later on. The same details appear multiple times, often almost word-for-word and only pages apart. There is an excessive use of very long quotations that add very little; in most such cases it would have been much more effective to simply summarize the information, especially since Breverton generally repeats the most important points in his own words anyway. Modernizing spelling in quoted sections would have greatly improved readability as well. There are also numerous typos, incorrect or extraneous words, inconsistent spellings, confusing phrasing, and other sloppy errors throughout. With good editing and the elimination of extraneous information and unnecessary quotations, this book could have been half the length and a hundred times more effective.
Beyond the flaws in the writing, however, are issues of accuracy. These problems begin only a few pages into the book, when Breverton says Richard II was 22 at the time of his death (he was 33). A typo, perhaps, but the number of subsequent errors in the book suggests otherwise. Some of the more egregious are:
- Breverton mentions "the first king of all England, the Dane Athelstan." This is enough to make the king in question turn over in his grave, given that Athelstan was actually an Anglo-Saxon king (the grandson of Alfred the Great) who spent much of his reign fighting the Danes (Vikings).
- When discussing the reign of Edward II, Breverton mentions "the queen's lover, Hugh Despenser." In fact, Queen Isabella detested Despenser, who may have been her husband's lover but was certainly not hers. She herself did take a lover, but his name was Roger Mortimer.
- When Breverton discusses Owen Tudor's illegitimate son, Sir David Owen, he calls Edmund Tudor his uncle, but since Edmund (brother of Jasper) was also the son of Owen Tudor, he was actually David's (half) brother.
- While discussing other members of the Mortimer family, Breverton says the Mortimers "married into the Neville family, earls of Warwick." Actually, the title Earl of Warwick was not traditionally a Neville title, though the family held other earldoms, including those of Westmorland and Salisbury. The only Neville to hold the title Earl of Warwick was Richard Neville, known as the Kingmaker, who gained the title through his wife, Anne Beauchamp. Upon Warwick's death it went to his son-in-law George, Duke of Clarence, and then to George's son, Edward, but they were both Plantagenets, not Nevilles.
- In a tangential reference to later royalty, Breverton mentions "Queen Victoria's grandsons George V, Kaiser Wilhelm, and Tsar Nicholas." Nicholas was not a grandson of Queen Victoria - in fact, he was not related to her at all - although his wife Alexandra was one of Victoria's granddaughters, and Nicholas himself was a first cousin of George V (their mothers, princesses of Denmark, were sisters) and a more distant cousin twice over of Kaiser Wilhelm through common Russian and Prussian ancestors.
- At one point, Margaret Beaufort, Henry Tudor's mother, is described as "Suffolk's only child." Actually, her father was John Beaufort, 1st Duke of Somerset. She was married as a child to John de la Pole, who - while also still a child - inherited the title Duke of Suffolk from his father. The marriage was annulled within a few years.
- If Breverton is to be believed, Margaret Beaufort apparently had one of the longest pregnancies in human history, because Breverton says Henry Tudor (later Henry VII) was conceived in late 1455, but was still unborn at the time of his father Edmund's death on 1 November 1456. Breverton later correctly mentions Henry's birthdate as 28 January 1457. Breverton also says Margaret had "only just turned 14" at the time of Henry's birth, but actually she was still only 13, for another four months.
- Breverton's timeline is also off in regards to the birth of Edward of Lancaster, the son of Henry VI and his queen, Margaret of Anjou. Breverton tells us: "After 18 months of incapacity, in the last few days of 1454, Henry VI recovered his senses [and] learned he had a 10-week-old son." Hm...if I were Henry, that would have made me a bit suspicious. Fortunately for Henry, his son was actually born in October 1453, making him more like 14 months old when Henry regained his senses.
- When the Duke of York is killed at the Battle of Wakefield in December 1460, Breverton notes that his "12-year-old son, Edmund, Earl of Rutland" is also killed. Edmund was actually 17 at the time of his death. His exact date of birth is reliably recorded as 17 May 1443.
- When discussing France, Breverton is inconsistent as regards the age of Charles VIII. He says the king was 13 in 1483 (giving him a birthdate of 1470), but then later says his sister, the regent Anne of Beaujeu, "decided to marry her 8-year-old brother to 12-year-old Anne of Brittany." Since Breverton has previously (and correctly) established Anne of Brittany's birth year as 1477, it is impossible for her to be four years older than a husband born in 1470. A few pages later, Breverton says it is Louis XII who married Anne of Brittany, "unifying France and Brittany forever." Later, he contradicts himself again, saying "Anne married Charles VIII on 6 December 1491, ending Brittany's thousand-year independence." As it turns out, Anne did marry both Charles and Louis. She first married Charles, but when he died at age 27 and was succeeded by his cousin, Louis, she was obliged to marry the new king. But Breverton does not make this clear.
- Back in England, Breverton incorrectly gives Edward IV's death date as 3 April 1483. Edward actually died on 9 April.
- When Breverton discusses the Stanley family, he can't seem to keep the family relationships straight from one sentence to another. Katherine Stanley is called both the sister and the daughter of Thomas Stanley, and her son John Savage is called a cousin of Thomas's brother William, which makes no sense, since he would either be William's nephew (if Katherine is in fact the sister of Thomas and therefore also of William) or his great-nephew (if Katherine is Thomas's daughter).
In addition to these and numerous other factual errors and inconsistencies, Breverton makes many odd references and suggestive statements for which he provides no evidence and for which there seems to be little accepted support. He says that Margaret Beaufort's father John, Duke of Somerset, was "possibly murdered by Yorkists" but gives no further information. In all my extensive reading about this period of British history, I have never come across such an allegation; rather, the consensus seems to be that Somerset most likely committed suicide.
Another odd statement that caught my attention was when Breverton notes, "The Tudor brothers were not seen as potential heirs [to the English throne]." Why would they be? Although they were half-brothers to Henry VI, this was through their mother, the French princess Katherine of Valois, not through any shared English royal blood. On their father's side, they were Welsh, descended from a prominent family but without any relation to the English throne.
Later, Breverton states that "the Lancastrians had not pursued the kingship of France as much as the Yorkists." Huh? With the exception of Edward III (the ancestor of both Yorkists and Lancastrians), no king is more associated with the pursuit of the French crown than the Lancastrian Henry V. Following Henry's early death (while conducting a campaign in France, incidentally) it was his brothers who continued the struggle in France, and his son, Henry VI, who was the only man (or technically, boy) to be crowned king of both England and France (not that he ever had much if any real power in France). The Yorkists didn't do much of anything in France. Edward IV launched a campaign but quickly settled for being paid off by the French king. Neither Edward V nor Richard III, the only other Yorkist kings, were on the throne long enough for any efforts to regain the French crown.
When it comes to Richard III, Breverton is determined to take the darkest view possible. He is absolutely convinced that Richard murdered his nephews, Edward V and his brother Richard, Duke of York (whom Breverton confusingly refers to in one place as Richard of Shrewsbury - technically accurate, since he was born in Shrewsbury - and in another as Richard of Cornwall, for which I can find no explanation). According to Breverton, pretty much everyone hated Richard and was against his kingship. If you believe Breverton, it's a miracle Richard could even raise any troops at all, despite the fact that other books I've read suggest Richard enjoyed a great deal of popularity in the North, while many of those who opposed him did so because they feared he would prove a strong king, leaving them with less power.
Naturally, Breverton also believes that Edward IV "may have been poisoned" (by Richard III, of course), though no evidence suggests that Edward's early death was anything but natural, most likely the result of his indulgent, unhealthy lifestyle. In discussing the marriage of William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, to Richard's illegitimate daughter Katherine Plantagenet, Breverton says, "Whether this was a forced marriage is unknown..." Why even make such a comment if there is no support for such an allegation?
On a different note, the book's lack of an index was extremely irritating, as was its lack of notes, especially since Breverton does not make it clear where most of his information comes from. He frequently says things like, "So-and-so tells us that...." without ever explaining who So-and-so is. In such cases the source is usually mentioned by last name only. Frequently, as in the case of an oft-quoted author named Mortimer, these sources are not listed in the bibliography, so there is no way for the reader to identify them. The book also lacks a map, despite the fact that one is mentioned on the copyright page.
The book does at least include family trees, though these are not without flaws. John of Lancaster, the brother of Henry V, is listed in the wrong generation. Katherine Swynford was actually the third (not second) wife of John of Gaunt. And Cecily Neville and her mother Joan (Beaufort) are listed as descended from "others" in the Edward III tree, thought they should be listed as descendants of John of Gaunt. No mention is made of the Yorkists' secondary line of descent from Edward III through Edmund of Langley, even though this is where the title Duke of York came from.
There were occasional pieces of interesting information, such as a few details of the Tudor family's Welsh ancestors, but overall, this book left me wondering: How on earth did this ever get published?
I bought the book because it seemed to offer a different perspective on the Wars of the Roses and the rise of the Tudors, by focusing on Jasper Tudor, the uncle of Henry VII. I've come across Jasper repeatedly in other books, but always as a secondary figure, so I was interested to learn more about him beyond the basic details of his life. Unfortunately, this book did not deliver. Despite its title, it revealed nothing new about Jasper. In fact, it hardly seemed to focus on Jasper at all most of the time, and there were long sections where he wasn't even mentioned, or was mentioned only very superficially in passing. Of course it makes sense to discuss events in which Jasper did not take direct part if they affected his life or are necessary for an understanding of the overall history, but Breverton goes into far too much detail about people and events that are tangential at best. As another reviewer wrote, it seems as if he just cut and pasted a bunch of information in the hopes that someone might find it interesting. Much of this information is of little relevance to Jasper's life or even to the history as a whole.
The book's flaws are so numerous that it doesn't appear to have been edited at all. Breverton jumps around chronologically, mentioning people and events in passing and only introducing or explaining them properly later on. The same details appear multiple times, often almost word-for-word and only pages apart. There is an excessive use of very long quotations that add very little; in most such cases it would have been much more effective to simply summarize the information, especially since Breverton generally repeats the most important points in his own words anyway. Modernizing spelling in quoted sections would have greatly improved readability as well. There are also numerous typos, incorrect or extraneous words, inconsistent spellings, confusing phrasing, and other sloppy errors throughout. With good editing and the elimination of extraneous information and unnecessary quotations, this book could have been half the length and a hundred times more effective.
Beyond the flaws in the writing, however, are issues of accuracy. These problems begin only a few pages into the book, when Breverton says Richard II was 22 at the time of his death (he was 33). A typo, perhaps, but the number of subsequent errors in the book suggests otherwise. Some of the more egregious are:
- Breverton mentions "the first king of all England, the Dane Athelstan." This is enough to make the king in question turn over in his grave, given that Athelstan was actually an Anglo-Saxon king (the grandson of Alfred the Great) who spent much of his reign fighting the Danes (Vikings).
- When discussing the reign of Edward II, Breverton mentions "the queen's lover, Hugh Despenser." In fact, Queen Isabella detested Despenser, who may have been her husband's lover but was certainly not hers. She herself did take a lover, but his name was Roger Mortimer.
- When Breverton discusses Owen Tudor's illegitimate son, Sir David Owen, he calls Edmund Tudor his uncle, but since Edmund (brother of Jasper) was also the son of Owen Tudor, he was actually David's (half) brother.
- While discussing other members of the Mortimer family, Breverton says the Mortimers "married into the Neville family, earls of Warwick." Actually, the title Earl of Warwick was not traditionally a Neville title, though the family held other earldoms, including those of Westmorland and Salisbury. The only Neville to hold the title Earl of Warwick was Richard Neville, known as the Kingmaker, who gained the title through his wife, Anne Beauchamp. Upon Warwick's death it went to his son-in-law George, Duke of Clarence, and then to George's son, Edward, but they were both Plantagenets, not Nevilles.
- In a tangential reference to later royalty, Breverton mentions "Queen Victoria's grandsons George V, Kaiser Wilhelm, and Tsar Nicholas." Nicholas was not a grandson of Queen Victoria - in fact, he was not related to her at all - although his wife Alexandra was one of Victoria's granddaughters, and Nicholas himself was a first cousin of George V (their mothers, princesses of Denmark, were sisters) and a more distant cousin twice over of Kaiser Wilhelm through common Russian and Prussian ancestors.
- At one point, Margaret Beaufort, Henry Tudor's mother, is described as "Suffolk's only child." Actually, her father was John Beaufort, 1st Duke of Somerset. She was married as a child to John de la Pole, who - while also still a child - inherited the title Duke of Suffolk from his father. The marriage was annulled within a few years.
- If Breverton is to be believed, Margaret Beaufort apparently had one of the longest pregnancies in human history, because Breverton says Henry Tudor (later Henry VII) was conceived in late 1455, but was still unborn at the time of his father Edmund's death on 1 November 1456. Breverton later correctly mentions Henry's birthdate as 28 January 1457. Breverton also says Margaret had "only just turned 14" at the time of Henry's birth, but actually she was still only 13, for another four months.
- Breverton's timeline is also off in regards to the birth of Edward of Lancaster, the son of Henry VI and his queen, Margaret of Anjou. Breverton tells us: "After 18 months of incapacity, in the last few days of 1454, Henry VI recovered his senses [and] learned he had a 10-week-old son." Hm...if I were Henry, that would have made me a bit suspicious. Fortunately for Henry, his son was actually born in October 1453, making him more like 14 months old when Henry regained his senses.
- When the Duke of York is killed at the Battle of Wakefield in December 1460, Breverton notes that his "12-year-old son, Edmund, Earl of Rutland" is also killed. Edmund was actually 17 at the time of his death. His exact date of birth is reliably recorded as 17 May 1443.
- When discussing France, Breverton is inconsistent as regards the age of Charles VIII. He says the king was 13 in 1483 (giving him a birthdate of 1470), but then later says his sister, the regent Anne of Beaujeu, "decided to marry her 8-year-old brother to 12-year-old Anne of Brittany." Since Breverton has previously (and correctly) established Anne of Brittany's birth year as 1477, it is impossible for her to be four years older than a husband born in 1470. A few pages later, Breverton says it is Louis XII who married Anne of Brittany, "unifying France and Brittany forever." Later, he contradicts himself again, saying "Anne married Charles VIII on 6 December 1491, ending Brittany's thousand-year independence." As it turns out, Anne did marry both Charles and Louis. She first married Charles, but when he died at age 27 and was succeeded by his cousin, Louis, she was obliged to marry the new king. But Breverton does not make this clear.
- Back in England, Breverton incorrectly gives Edward IV's death date as 3 April 1483. Edward actually died on 9 April.
- When Breverton discusses the Stanley family, he can't seem to keep the family relationships straight from one sentence to another. Katherine Stanley is called both the sister and the daughter of Thomas Stanley, and her son John Savage is called a cousin of Thomas's brother William, which makes no sense, since he would either be William's nephew (if Katherine is in fact the sister of Thomas and therefore also of William) or his great-nephew (if Katherine is Thomas's daughter).
In addition to these and numerous other factual errors and inconsistencies, Breverton makes many odd references and suggestive statements for which he provides no evidence and for which there seems to be little accepted support. He says that Margaret Beaufort's father John, Duke of Somerset, was "possibly murdered by Yorkists" but gives no further information. In all my extensive reading about this period of British history, I have never come across such an allegation; rather, the consensus seems to be that Somerset most likely committed suicide.
Another odd statement that caught my attention was when Breverton notes, "The Tudor brothers were not seen as potential heirs [to the English throne]." Why would they be? Although they were half-brothers to Henry VI, this was through their mother, the French princess Katherine of Valois, not through any shared English royal blood. On their father's side, they were Welsh, descended from a prominent family but without any relation to the English throne.
Later, Breverton states that "the Lancastrians had not pursued the kingship of France as much as the Yorkists." Huh? With the exception of Edward III (the ancestor of both Yorkists and Lancastrians), no king is more associated with the pursuit of the French crown than the Lancastrian Henry V. Following Henry's early death (while conducting a campaign in France, incidentally) it was his brothers who continued the struggle in France, and his son, Henry VI, who was the only man (or technically, boy) to be crowned king of both England and France (not that he ever had much if any real power in France). The Yorkists didn't do much of anything in France. Edward IV launched a campaign but quickly settled for being paid off by the French king. Neither Edward V nor Richard III, the only other Yorkist kings, were on the throne long enough for any efforts to regain the French crown.
When it comes to Richard III, Breverton is determined to take the darkest view possible. He is absolutely convinced that Richard murdered his nephews, Edward V and his brother Richard, Duke of York (whom Breverton confusingly refers to in one place as Richard of Shrewsbury - technically accurate, since he was born in Shrewsbury - and in another as Richard of Cornwall, for which I can find no explanation). According to Breverton, pretty much everyone hated Richard and was against his kingship. If you believe Breverton, it's a miracle Richard could even raise any troops at all, despite the fact that other books I've read suggest Richard enjoyed a great deal of popularity in the North, while many of those who opposed him did so because they feared he would prove a strong king, leaving them with less power.
Naturally, Breverton also believes that Edward IV "may have been poisoned" (by Richard III, of course), though no evidence suggests that Edward's early death was anything but natural, most likely the result of his indulgent, unhealthy lifestyle. In discussing the marriage of William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, to Richard's illegitimate daughter Katherine Plantagenet, Breverton says, "Whether this was a forced marriage is unknown..." Why even make such a comment if there is no support for such an allegation?
On a different note, the book's lack of an index was extremely irritating, as was its lack of notes, especially since Breverton does not make it clear where most of his information comes from. He frequently says things like, "So-and-so tells us that...." without ever explaining who So-and-so is. In such cases the source is usually mentioned by last name only. Frequently, as in the case of an oft-quoted author named Mortimer, these sources are not listed in the bibliography, so there is no way for the reader to identify them. The book also lacks a map, despite the fact that one is mentioned on the copyright page.
The book does at least include family trees, though these are not without flaws. John of Lancaster, the brother of Henry V, is listed in the wrong generation. Katherine Swynford was actually the third (not second) wife of John of Gaunt. And Cecily Neville and her mother Joan (Beaufort) are listed as descended from "others" in the Edward III tree, thought they should be listed as descendants of John of Gaunt. No mention is made of the Yorkists' secondary line of descent from Edward III through Edmund of Langley, even though this is where the title Duke of York came from.
There were occasional pieces of interesting information, such as a few details of the Tudor family's Welsh ancestors, but overall, this book left me wondering: How on earth did this ever get published?
October 13, 2016
So, let's talk about this book. Or rather, the first 43 pages of it because that was as far as I got. In that time, I found almost 20 errors and contradictions. The first one I passed off as a typo (Richard II was thirty-three, not twenty-two when deposed). When Breverton kept making suppositions (in an attempt to make the history more readable?), I started to get irritated. By page 43 I was shouting at the book and groaning, especially when stating that Katherine Valois' absence at her husband's coronation was abnormal (not only have I finished extensive study on mid-late medieval courts, but I had just finished Sarah Gristwood's work 'Blood Sister' where she states the first former queen to attend a king's coronation was in 1937). The writing style also bothered me in that the first two chapters seemed especially focused on building 'a most glorious and noble lineage' for the descendants of Owen Tudor and show-casing the author's mastery of Welsh history (not an expert but questionable given the rest of what I read).
November 16, 2014
Terry Breverton remarks the importance Jasper played on Henry's ascension as well as the Welsh. Starting with the Tudors' Welsh roots to their misquoted surname, to the death of the Duke and Earl and thr impact he and his nephew have had on history, this is a brilliant expose on a very neglected figure. Jasper was a pragmatist, an excellent military tactitian and political player whise expertise he passed them on to Henry when the both of them went on to exile. He spent most of his adult life defending the house he was born into, fighting for his half brother's right to keep his crown and in spite of his disagreements with the Queen and his other officials, he and his brother always remained faithful to Henry VI. Its amazing to read his story, from his parents' unlikely union to Jasper's many exiles and moving from court to court, king to king, acting as a mediator (like in the case of Warwick, Louis with the Lancastrian Queen, Marguerite of Anjou) and cheating death at every turn.
I recommend this book to every history buff out there who enjoys reading about the wars of the roses and the Tudors and is looking for a good factual account on the period.
I recommend this book to every history buff out there who enjoys reading about the wars of the roses and the Tudors and is looking for a good factual account on the period.
April 15, 2015
This is so poorly written. I read the whole thing because I was interested in the topic, but, oh, it was a chore! Things it did not have: maps, an index, or a list of people (and when dealing with unfamiliar Welsh names it would really help). Things it did have: people that would be introduced then disappear, timelines that circled back on themselves, incoherent descriptions of battles, an blatantly anti-York bias, and run-on sentences like you wouldn't believe.
The wost thing is that after 311 pages, I don't feel like I know who Jasper Tudor was. I know what he did (and I know every title and landholding he ever had). But I don't know what having a cup of tea with him would be like. The book gave little thought to who the Tudors were. The Yorks had more personality because the author obviously did not like them, so felt free to characterize them.
The wost thing is that after 311 pages, I don't feel like I know who Jasper Tudor was. I know what he did (and I know every title and landholding he ever had). But I don't know what having a cup of tea with him would be like. The book gave little thought to who the Tudors were. The Yorks had more personality because the author obviously did not like them, so felt free to characterize them.
August 2, 2021
An informative read, although more a history of the Wars of the Roses rather than an intimate picture of Jasper himself, which was what I was after.
June 11, 2017
Whilst it had some interesting information I was not aware of, it was difficult to know how accurate it was. The reason for this is there were so many mistakes, inaccuracies and just plain wrong statements throughout the whole book. I'm tempted to send my version with the corrections back to the publishers for a refund. On page 36 he writes that Hugh Despenser was the queen's lover - which is wrong. The Queen he is referring to is Isabella of France, and her lover was named Roger Mortimer. Despenser was likely to have been Edward II's lover, and Isabella was not a fan of his.
On top of that, the writing is poor and the paragraphs not fluid. It almost seems as if the author cut and paste information that he guessed might go together but really doesn't. Names and titles of the same person are used in variations from one sentence to another which makes it confusing to follow along from one to the next. He also left out specifics throughout and many of his sentences seemed like great assumptions with nothing to back them up and no explanations of what happened.
The book itself could have been shorter than the 358 pages as so much is redundant and repetitious. This may or may not be the author or the editors fault. I feel bad for someone who reads this as a Tudor history novice as they will be getting a lot of bad information.
One of the tackiest things I've seen so far is that the author put an advert for another book of his in the second chapter, mid paragraph). At this point I wrote next to it that I'd never read another book by him. Maybe he thought to put it in early in the book before people realised how bad his writing is? I only kept reading to see how much more incorrect information there was. It was almost like a homework exercise.
In the end it was quite a disappointment. I was excited to see someone writing about Jasper, but unfortunately this book took away the excitement and just left frustration and a sense of having wasted a lot of time.
On top of that, the writing is poor and the paragraphs not fluid. It almost seems as if the author cut and paste information that he guessed might go together but really doesn't. Names and titles of the same person are used in variations from one sentence to another which makes it confusing to follow along from one to the next. He also left out specifics throughout and many of his sentences seemed like great assumptions with nothing to back them up and no explanations of what happened.
The book itself could have been shorter than the 358 pages as so much is redundant and repetitious. This may or may not be the author or the editors fault. I feel bad for someone who reads this as a Tudor history novice as they will be getting a lot of bad information.
One of the tackiest things I've seen so far is that the author put an advert for another book of his in the second chapter, mid paragraph). At this point I wrote next to it that I'd never read another book by him. Maybe he thought to put it in early in the book before people realised how bad his writing is? I only kept reading to see how much more incorrect information there was. It was almost like a homework exercise.
In the end it was quite a disappointment. I was excited to see someone writing about Jasper, but unfortunately this book took away the excitement and just left frustration and a sense of having wasted a lot of time.
December 20, 2014
Highly recommended.
December 12, 2018
I wanted to read this book because I was curious to learn more about Jasper Tudor, the uncle of Henry VII. It seemed to me that he was such a pivotal force behind behind the young Henry Tudor becoming king. This was the first book I had come across that appeared to focus on Jasper Tudor. This book was a disappointment. It was full of details regarding his wealth, lands and titles, but little or nothing about the man himself, especially since it was he who made the Tudor Dynasty a reality. The author missed out on a great opportunity !
January 29, 2018
This book is littered with typos and mistaken facts.
The author would have been better served to spend more time on solid fact checking than trying to cram information in. Really, he does make some good points, points which much of the information is unnecessary to make.
I would not recommend this book, but if you must find out for yourself, it's likely better if you have the sort of background that allows you to identify mistakes easily.
The author would have been better served to spend more time on solid fact checking than trying to cram information in. Really, he does make some good points, points which much of the information is unnecessary to make.
I would not recommend this book, but if you must find out for yourself, it's likely better if you have the sort of background that allows you to identify mistakes easily.
June 15, 2017
Comprehensive and detailed biography of Jasper Tudor, the uncle of Henry VII and brother in law to Margaret Beaufort. Jasper Tudor was the unsung hero of Henry's battle to take the throne. "The importance of Jasper's tutelage of his nephew has only recently been fully appreciated by historians. While Henry's mother,
Margaret Beaufort, was an indispensable agent of his interests in England, Jasper was his political mentor in the years spent in exile."
Breverton discusses both Edmund and Jasper's Welsh background, their descent from Welsh royalty, to the upbringing in the court of their half brother, Henry VI. He recounts their elevation to the premier earls of the land, second only to the royal dukes. Clearly Henry VI wanted to protect himself by ennobling and enriching his closest and trusted family members. He furthered Edmund's wealth, by pairing him with the richest and most influential heiress in England at the time. We all know that Edmund did not live to see the son born of that union, and Jasper was thrust into the role of protector and guardian of both Henry and his mother. Jasper took custody of Henry when they made their escape to France, shaping him into the man that would eventually become king. "Henry and Jasper both believed Henry was the chosen one, destined for glory. Henry was possibly the first king to leave a full Treasury, and his three children were linked to the other royal dynasties of Europe." Not a bad legacy.
Jasper Tudor was a kingmaker. Born in secrecy, hidden away because of the stigma of his parent's union, Jasper Tudor accepted his destiny, putting his whole life on hold to take on the dangerous cause of his nephew. Breverton points out that the success of this mission, reunited England with Wales, placing the descendants of the native people on the rightful throne where they belong.
December 7, 2021
As I began this book I became frustrated with all the minute facts. Yes, I do want facts, but I wanted the story of Jasper. I swear I could have figured out to the last penny how much Jasper earned. Finally to story of Jasper began.
March 3, 2020
An interesting Welsh persepctive on the Tudor family before Henry VII, albeit at times a little too pro Welsh and Lancastrian
December 3, 2016
Review - Often Jasper Tudor is a supporting character in biographies of Henry VII (uncle of) or Margaret Beaufort (brother-in-law of), he hasn't really been written about as his own person before, so this was quite an interesting read for me. The particularly interesting point for me was Jasper's role in Henry VII's time abroad in the run up to the Battle of Bosworth Field, and his role in Henry VII's upbringing.
General Subject/s? - Tudors / Wars of the Roses / Biography / History
Recommend? – Yes
Rating - 16/20
General Subject/s? - Tudors / Wars of the Roses / Biography / History
Recommend? – Yes
Rating - 16/20
August 30, 2014
Really dislike non-fiction books without end- or footnotes and this is one of those.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews