What do you think?
Rate this book
Disability and the Tudors: All the King's Fools
Throughout history, how society treated its disabled and infirm can tell us a great deal about the period. Challenge with any impairment, disease or frailty was often a matter of life and death before the advent of modern medicine, so how did a society support the disabled amongst them? For centuries, disabled people and their history have been overlooked. Very little on the physically challenged or mentally impaired was written down during the Renaissance period. The Tudor period was no exception, and presents a complex and unparalleled narrative. The sixteenth century was far from exemplary in the treatment of its infirm population, but a multifaceted and ambiguous story emerges, where society’s ‘natural fools’ were elevated as much as they were belittled. Meet character’s like William Somer, Henry VIII’s fool at court, whom the king depended upon, along with Anne Boleyn’s fool, Jane, and understand how they were cared for, despite their difference. Learn how the dissolution of the monasteries contributed to forming an army of ‘sturdy beggars’ who roamed Tudor England without charitable support. From the nobility to the lowest of society, Phillipa Vincent-Connolly casts a light on the lives of disabled people in Tudor England and guides us through the social, religious, cultural and ruling classes’ response to disability as it was then perceived.
326 pages, Hardcover
First published November 3, 2021
13 people are currently reading
173 people want to read
About the author
Phillipa Vincent-Connolly
8 books42 followersPhillipa Vincent-Connolly is a historian who qualified in History and Humanities with the Open University in 2011. She went on to qualify as a secondary school teacher in 2014 and teaches History and Textiles in schools across Dorset as a supply teacher. She has published both fiction and non-fiction and is currently working towards achieving her PhD in History. Among her many interests, she has a deep and abiding love for all things historical: fashion, corsetry, archives, artefacts, and architecture, and is a keen activist with an interest in disability equality and socialism. Phillipa lives in Poole, Dorset with her two children.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 40 reviews
November 23, 2021
DNF at 7%. This reads like a somewhat disorganized undergraduate paper, not a work of scholarship.
More seriously, I have identified six works by other authors which Connolly has paraphrased very closely without suitable attribution. It seems likely that a more detailed search would find additional works whose words had been taken without suitable attribution. Because I realize the gravity of this statement, I am including the relevant excerpts from the works copied and from this book.
(1) From Wikipedia: "The Beggars or The Cripples is an oil-on-panel by the Netherlandish Renaissance artist Pieter Bruegel the Elder, painted in 1568. [...] Still, the beggars are not quite ordinary beggars, as they wear carnival headgear representing various classes of society: a cardboard crown (the king), a paper shako (the soldier), a beret (the bourgeois), a cap (the peasant), and a mitre (the bishop). The work clearly has some satirical meaning, which has so far eluded interpretation. Perhaps physical imperfections are meant to symbolise moral decrepitude, which can affect all men irrespective of class."
Connolly's text: "The picture is an oil-on-panel by the Flemish renaissance artist painted in 1568. The beggars are not quite ordinary, as the painting depicts them wearing carnival headgear, representing various classes of society: a cardboard crown for the king, a paper shako for the soldier, a beret for the bourgeois, a cap for the peasant, and a mitre for the bishop. The work has some satirical meaning, which has so far eluded interpretation. [...] Perhaps physical imperfections were meant to symbolise moral decrepitude, which can affect all men irrespective of class in society."
(2) Enabling Richard: The Rhetoric of Disability in Richard III, Katherine Schaap Williams Disability Studies Quarterly, v29n4 https://dsq-sds.org/article/view/997/...
“This article examines Shakespeare's Richard III as an important example of staging disability in early modern drama. Although Richard's character is taken by theorists as emblematic of premodern notions of disability, this article reads Richard instead as a "dismodern" subject who employs rhetorical power and performative ability to compensate for a bodily form marked with negative associations. Richard foregrounds his deformed figure in ways that advance his political power, appealing to bodily deformity and the impotence he claims it entails to obscure his shrewd political maneuvers. Understanding the powerful ends to which Richard uses his disability allows us to think about disabled identity in the Renaissance as a complex negotiation of discourses of deformity and monstrosity as well as a relation to bodily contingency that reveals the instability of all bodies.”
Connolly: “Shakespeare's Richard III is an essential example of staging disability in an early modern drama. Although theorists take Richard's character as emblematic of premodern notions of disability, Richard could be a character who employs rhetorical power and performative ability to compensate for a bodily form marked with negative associations. Richard forefronts his deformed figure in ways that elevate his political power, appealing to physical disability and the infirmity he claims it entails to obscure his shrewd political manoeuvres. Understanding the dominant ends to which Richard III uses his debility allows us to think about disabled identity during the period, as a complex negotiation of discourse surrounding deformity and monstrosity, as well as revealing the instability of all bodies.”
(3) "The lying'st knave in Christendom": The Development of Disability in the False Miracle of St. Alban's Lindsey Row-Heyveld DSQ v29n4
https://dsq-sds.org/article/view/994/...
“This article examines various retellings of a single story to explore how conceptions of disability changed throughout the English Reformation. The tale of a false miracle feigned and revealed in the village of St. Alban's during the reign of Henry VI was recounted by a number of authors: Thomas More, Richard Grafton, John Foxe, and, finally, William Shakespeare. More's version imagines a disability that is shaped by an understanding of mutual exchange between disabled and able-bodied persons. The Reformation eliminated that exchange, and its loss is reflected in the other accounts of the false miracle of St. Alban's where disability is imagined as increasingly dangerous, deceptive, and emasculating. I argue that Shakespeare, in particular, expands negative post-Reformation ideas about disability in 2 Henry VI, while simultaneously demonstrating the inability to contain disability in a period that anxiously struggled to define and regulate it.”
Connolly's: “Tales of the 'disabled' were recounted by many authors: Thomas More, Richard Grafton, John Foxe, and, finally, William Shakespeare. More's opinion on disability was shaped by an understanding of mutual exchange between disabled and non-disabled persons, probably from what he had witnessed at home and within the Tudor court. The Reformation eliminated that exchange, and disability was imagined as increasingly dangerous, deceptive, and emasculating. Shakespeare expanded on contrary post-Reformation ideas about disability while the Tudors and Shakespeare simultaneously demonstrated their inability to contain disability in a period that struggled to define and regulate it.
(4) wikipedia: “Living in an age which attached much importance to physical beauty in both sexes, he endured much ridicule as a result: Queen Elizabeth called him "my pygmy", and King James VI and I nicknamed him "my little beagle".[4] Nonetheless, his father recognised that it was Robert rather than his half-brother Thomas who had inherited his own political genius.”
Connolly: “...in an age which attached much importance to physical beauty in both sexes, and he endured much ridicule as a result: Queen Elizabeth called him 'my pygmy', and King James I nick-named him 'my little beagle'. Nonetheless, his father recognized that it was Robert, rather than Thomas, his eldest son, who had inherited his political genius.”
(5) 500 years later: Henry VIII, leg ulcers and the course of history
CR Chalmers and EJ Chaloner J R Soc Med. 2009 Dec 1; 102(12): 514–517
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
The year of 1536 has been described as an ‘annus horribilis’ for the King:9 his injuries, the loss of his potential heir, the death of his illegitimate son (the Duke of Richmond) and accusations of Anne's adultery made him increasingly unpredictable, irascible and cruel, and prompted him to brutally rid himself of another wife.
Connolly: “Henry's 'annus horribilis' was 1536: his sporting injuries, the loss of his potential heir, accusations of Anne Boleyn's treason and adultery, and the untimely death of his illegitimate son the Duke of Richmond, made the kind increasingly unpredictable, irasicible, and cruel, which, with all these events cumulated together, meant that he had reacted more brutally to events in that year than in any other”
Also from Chalmers and Chaloner: However, in January 1536, while jousting at Greenwich, the King was unseated from his horse, crashing to the ground with the fully-armoured horse landing on top of him. He remained unconscious (‘without speech’) for two hours, a head injury that would certainly have warranted a CT scan to exclude intracranial haemorrhage by the criteria of today. His legs were crushed in the fall and he may have sustained fractures to one or more of his long bones. There was such concern over the potential severity of his injuries that the Queen (Anne Boleyn) is said to have miscarried a male child shortly after hearing of the accident.
Connolly: “However, on the occasion of 24 January 1536, at Greenwich, the king was unseated from his horse in the joust and crashed to the ground with his fully-armoured horse landing on top of him. Henry probably only survived because he was wearing armour. According to one report, he lay 'for two hours without speech', possibly through a severe concussion or bruising of the cerebral cortex. When news of Henry's jousting accident was relayed to his second wife, Anne Boleyn, by her uncle, the Duke of Norfolk, she went into shock over the potential severity of his injuries and days later, she miscarried a male child.”
(6) https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british...
The Poor Laws passed during the reign of Elizabeth I played a critical role in the country's welfare. They signalled an important progression from private charity to welfare state, where the care and supervision of the poor was embodied in law and integral to the management of each town. Another sign of their success was that the disorder and disturbance which had been feared by Parliament failed to materialise. But problems remained. There is no doubt that the laws helped the destitute by guaranteeing a minimum level of subsistence, but those who were scraping a living did not qualify for help and continued to struggle. And, as the years wore on and the population continued to increase, the provisions made to care for the poor became stretched to the limit. It is, however, a tribute to their lasting success that two of the Acts, from 1597 and 1601, endured until well into the nineteenth Century.
Connolly: “Poor laws passed during the reign of Elisabeth I played a critical role in the country's welfare. They signalled a vital progression from private charity to a welfare state, where the care and supervision of the poor and disabled were embodied in law and became integral to the management of each town. Another sign of the Poor Law's success was that the disorder and disturbance which had been feared by Parliament failed to materialise, however, problems remained. The laws helped the destitute by guaranteeing a minimum level of subsistence, but those who scraped a living never qualified for help and continued to struggle. And, as the population increased, and the years wore on, the provisions made to care for the poor, disabled, and destitute became stretched to the limit. It is, however, a tribute to Elizabethan ingenuity of the lasting success of the two Poor Law Acts, from 1597 and 1601, that endured well into the Victorian era.”
The Row-Heyveld article, the BBC article, and appears in Connolly's bibliography but is not cited where the paraphrase occurs. The Chalmers and Chaloner article is cited, but not near either of the paraphrased passages. The other works are not in the bibliography or cited in any way.
More seriously, I have identified six works by other authors which Connolly has paraphrased very closely without suitable attribution. It seems likely that a more detailed search would find additional works whose words had been taken without suitable attribution. Because I realize the gravity of this statement, I am including the relevant excerpts from the works copied and from this book.
(1) From Wikipedia: "The Beggars or The Cripples is an oil-on-panel by the Netherlandish Renaissance artist Pieter Bruegel the Elder, painted in 1568. [...] Still, the beggars are not quite ordinary beggars, as they wear carnival headgear representing various classes of society: a cardboard crown (the king), a paper shako (the soldier), a beret (the bourgeois), a cap (the peasant), and a mitre (the bishop). The work clearly has some satirical meaning, which has so far eluded interpretation. Perhaps physical imperfections are meant to symbolise moral decrepitude, which can affect all men irrespective of class."
Connolly's text: "The picture is an oil-on-panel by the Flemish renaissance artist painted in 1568. The beggars are not quite ordinary, as the painting depicts them wearing carnival headgear, representing various classes of society: a cardboard crown for the king, a paper shako for the soldier, a beret for the bourgeois, a cap for the peasant, and a mitre for the bishop. The work has some satirical meaning, which has so far eluded interpretation. [...] Perhaps physical imperfections were meant to symbolise moral decrepitude, which can affect all men irrespective of class in society."
(2) Enabling Richard: The Rhetoric of Disability in Richard III, Katherine Schaap Williams Disability Studies Quarterly, v29n4 https://dsq-sds.org/article/view/997/...
“This article examines Shakespeare's Richard III as an important example of staging disability in early modern drama. Although Richard's character is taken by theorists as emblematic of premodern notions of disability, this article reads Richard instead as a "dismodern" subject who employs rhetorical power and performative ability to compensate for a bodily form marked with negative associations. Richard foregrounds his deformed figure in ways that advance his political power, appealing to bodily deformity and the impotence he claims it entails to obscure his shrewd political maneuvers. Understanding the powerful ends to which Richard uses his disability allows us to think about disabled identity in the Renaissance as a complex negotiation of discourses of deformity and monstrosity as well as a relation to bodily contingency that reveals the instability of all bodies.”
Connolly: “Shakespeare's Richard III is an essential example of staging disability in an early modern drama. Although theorists take Richard's character as emblematic of premodern notions of disability, Richard could be a character who employs rhetorical power and performative ability to compensate for a bodily form marked with negative associations. Richard forefronts his deformed figure in ways that elevate his political power, appealing to physical disability and the infirmity he claims it entails to obscure his shrewd political manoeuvres. Understanding the dominant ends to which Richard III uses his debility allows us to think about disabled identity during the period, as a complex negotiation of discourse surrounding deformity and monstrosity, as well as revealing the instability of all bodies.”
(3) "The lying'st knave in Christendom": The Development of Disability in the False Miracle of St. Alban's Lindsey Row-Heyveld DSQ v29n4
https://dsq-sds.org/article/view/994/...
“This article examines various retellings of a single story to explore how conceptions of disability changed throughout the English Reformation. The tale of a false miracle feigned and revealed in the village of St. Alban's during the reign of Henry VI was recounted by a number of authors: Thomas More, Richard Grafton, John Foxe, and, finally, William Shakespeare. More's version imagines a disability that is shaped by an understanding of mutual exchange between disabled and able-bodied persons. The Reformation eliminated that exchange, and its loss is reflected in the other accounts of the false miracle of St. Alban's where disability is imagined as increasingly dangerous, deceptive, and emasculating. I argue that Shakespeare, in particular, expands negative post-Reformation ideas about disability in 2 Henry VI, while simultaneously demonstrating the inability to contain disability in a period that anxiously struggled to define and regulate it.”
Connolly's: “Tales of the 'disabled' were recounted by many authors: Thomas More, Richard Grafton, John Foxe, and, finally, William Shakespeare. More's opinion on disability was shaped by an understanding of mutual exchange between disabled and non-disabled persons, probably from what he had witnessed at home and within the Tudor court. The Reformation eliminated that exchange, and disability was imagined as increasingly dangerous, deceptive, and emasculating. Shakespeare expanded on contrary post-Reformation ideas about disability while the Tudors and Shakespeare simultaneously demonstrated their inability to contain disability in a period that struggled to define and regulate it.
(4) wikipedia: “Living in an age which attached much importance to physical beauty in both sexes, he endured much ridicule as a result: Queen Elizabeth called him "my pygmy", and King James VI and I nicknamed him "my little beagle".[4] Nonetheless, his father recognised that it was Robert rather than his half-brother Thomas who had inherited his own political genius.”
Connolly: “...in an age which attached much importance to physical beauty in both sexes, and he endured much ridicule as a result: Queen Elizabeth called him 'my pygmy', and King James I nick-named him 'my little beagle'. Nonetheless, his father recognized that it was Robert, rather than Thomas, his eldest son, who had inherited his political genius.”
(5) 500 years later: Henry VIII, leg ulcers and the course of history
CR Chalmers and EJ Chaloner J R Soc Med. 2009 Dec 1; 102(12): 514–517
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
The year of 1536 has been described as an ‘annus horribilis’ for the King:9 his injuries, the loss of his potential heir, the death of his illegitimate son (the Duke of Richmond) and accusations of Anne's adultery made him increasingly unpredictable, irascible and cruel, and prompted him to brutally rid himself of another wife.
Connolly: “Henry's 'annus horribilis' was 1536: his sporting injuries, the loss of his potential heir, accusations of Anne Boleyn's treason and adultery, and the untimely death of his illegitimate son the Duke of Richmond, made the kind increasingly unpredictable, irasicible, and cruel, which, with all these events cumulated together, meant that he had reacted more brutally to events in that year than in any other”
Also from Chalmers and Chaloner: However, in January 1536, while jousting at Greenwich, the King was unseated from his horse, crashing to the ground with the fully-armoured horse landing on top of him. He remained unconscious (‘without speech’) for two hours, a head injury that would certainly have warranted a CT scan to exclude intracranial haemorrhage by the criteria of today. His legs were crushed in the fall and he may have sustained fractures to one or more of his long bones. There was such concern over the potential severity of his injuries that the Queen (Anne Boleyn) is said to have miscarried a male child shortly after hearing of the accident.
Connolly: “However, on the occasion of 24 January 1536, at Greenwich, the king was unseated from his horse in the joust and crashed to the ground with his fully-armoured horse landing on top of him. Henry probably only survived because he was wearing armour. According to one report, he lay 'for two hours without speech', possibly through a severe concussion or bruising of the cerebral cortex. When news of Henry's jousting accident was relayed to his second wife, Anne Boleyn, by her uncle, the Duke of Norfolk, she went into shock over the potential severity of his injuries and days later, she miscarried a male child.”
(6) https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british...
The Poor Laws passed during the reign of Elizabeth I played a critical role in the country's welfare. They signalled an important progression from private charity to welfare state, where the care and supervision of the poor was embodied in law and integral to the management of each town. Another sign of their success was that the disorder and disturbance which had been feared by Parliament failed to materialise. But problems remained. There is no doubt that the laws helped the destitute by guaranteeing a minimum level of subsistence, but those who were scraping a living did not qualify for help and continued to struggle. And, as the years wore on and the population continued to increase, the provisions made to care for the poor became stretched to the limit. It is, however, a tribute to their lasting success that two of the Acts, from 1597 and 1601, endured until well into the nineteenth Century.
Connolly: “Poor laws passed during the reign of Elisabeth I played a critical role in the country's welfare. They signalled a vital progression from private charity to a welfare state, where the care and supervision of the poor and disabled were embodied in law and became integral to the management of each town. Another sign of the Poor Law's success was that the disorder and disturbance which had been feared by Parliament failed to materialise, however, problems remained. The laws helped the destitute by guaranteeing a minimum level of subsistence, but those who scraped a living never qualified for help and continued to struggle. And, as the population increased, and the years wore on, the provisions made to care for the poor, disabled, and destitute became stretched to the limit. It is, however, a tribute to Elizabethan ingenuity of the lasting success of the two Poor Law Acts, from 1597 and 1601, that endured well into the Victorian era.”
The Row-Heyveld article, the BBC article, and appears in Connolly's bibliography but is not cited where the paraphrase occurs. The Chalmers and Chaloner article is cited, but not near either of the paraphrased passages. The other works are not in the bibliography or cited in any way.
November 22, 2021
This was a bit of a mess of a book. I don't think the author really knew what tone the book was supposed to be.
November 24, 2021
This book needed a lot of work before being published, there are so many errors and issues I don't even know where to start. It is disjointed and amateurishly written, in some places text is just repeated for example: page 172 "a report from a visitation of a nunnery in 1535 to Thomas Cromwell, records the presence of a boy, Julian Heron, thirteen years old and an 'idiot fool'
And page 11: "..such as a visit to a nunnery in 1535 which refers to the presence of one Julian Heron, a thirteen year old and a 'idiot fool'. Bishop Cuthbert Tunstall writing to Thomas Cromwell in 1538 identified 'an innocent natural fool' whom 'by no means could make to grant' as he had spoken words of malice to the king."
The other problem with this page? it's taken directly from Dr Suzannah Lipscombe's article on Disability, titled "All the King's Fools:"
"a visitation of a nunnery in 1535 reports the presence of one Julian Heron, 13 years old and ‘an idiot fool’; Bishop Cuthbert Tunstall writing to Thomas Cromwell in 1538 identifies ‘an innocent natural fool’ whom ‘by no means we could make to grant’ that he had spoken words of malice against the king. " There are many more examples of text lifted from wikipedia and other sources, I am a bit gobsmacked that this was printed.
And page 11: "..such as a visit to a nunnery in 1535 which refers to the presence of one Julian Heron, a thirteen year old and a 'idiot fool'. Bishop Cuthbert Tunstall writing to Thomas Cromwell in 1538 identified 'an innocent natural fool' whom 'by no means could make to grant' as he had spoken words of malice to the king."
The other problem with this page? it's taken directly from Dr Suzannah Lipscombe's article on Disability, titled "All the King's Fools:"
"a visitation of a nunnery in 1535 reports the presence of one Julian Heron, 13 years old and ‘an idiot fool’; Bishop Cuthbert Tunstall writing to Thomas Cromwell in 1538 identifies ‘an innocent natural fool’ whom ‘by no means we could make to grant’ that he had spoken words of malice against the king. " There are many more examples of text lifted from wikipedia and other sources, I am a bit gobsmacked that this was printed.
December 11, 2021
I sort of enjoyed this book at first, it wasn't amazingly well written with a lot of repetition and felt like an undergrad essay, but i did appreciate the topic and felt it was really important as a starting point. I was going to give it 3 stars....but then I read other reviews of the plagiarism. And then I went back to my copy and started copy pasting the text into google. This book is built on the works of others and I do not know how any reputable publishing company would allow this to be printed. Every 2nd to 3rd page has something taken from another source verbatim. Even if they remove the book and publish a revised edition the damage has been done to the publishers and author. We now know it's basically just a rip off of other works and any new edition will just be better worded but still not the author's research. People giving this book 5 stars are not aware that they are praising the works of actual historians, not the author.
November 23, 2021
I appreciate the subject matter is important but this wasn't particularly well written or structured. The arguments didn't well work together. The author has a very unfortunate tendency of copying direct text from other sites, books and sources which some would consider plagiarism. For one very small instance, p.148: "By the time of the marriage to Claude, François was already a known womanizer and on the morning after the wedding, he left to go hunting and seek the company of another woman."
Taken from a site called The Freelance History Writer: "By the time of the marriage, François was a known womanizer and the morning after the wedding, he left to go hunting and seek the company of another woman."
There are quite a lot of these instances, which doesn't look good for a historian.
Taken from a site called The Freelance History Writer: "By the time of the marriage, François was a known womanizer and the morning after the wedding, he left to go hunting and seek the company of another woman."
There are quite a lot of these instances, which doesn't look good for a historian.
November 25, 2021
I feel bad leaving this kind of review because it is a subject matter of real importance (I am disabled) but very early on in with this book it was pretty clear that there was passion for the subject but not the means to deliver a book on it. A number of paragraphs repeated throughout and the repetition felt like a high school essay. Sometimes words were used in a way which made me feel the author didn't know their meaning. "Anne Boleyn was one of the most coveted queens" for example. Then there are phrases which are not the authors but clearly come from another source and that was disappointing but i felt bad for the author, maybe she doesn't know how to quote properly? Anyway I wanted to love it and I struggled to finish it.
December 1, 2021
I do not want to shame this author who clearly has a passion for her topic but this book, apart from being very unorganised and random, has VERY worrying amounts of text lifted from all over the place. I am not talking a line here and there which runs close to someone else's she is at the point of taking credit for someone else's argument and style and that's just not right. In the space of TWO pages we had this:
Connolly, p 207: “There has always been a reluctance to include disability history and the natural fool in the broader histories, which is shocking since the Tudor period witnessed a zenith of foolery and disabled people who made the Tudor court their home.”
Taken from this article written by Zoe Screti:
http://www.midlandshistoricalreview.c...
"This reluctance to include the fool in broader histories is surprising, since not only did the Tudor period witness the zenith of court foolery, but there exists, as shall be seen, a wealth of sources relating to the fools who made the Tudor court their home."
Then:
Connolly, p 206:
"The changing clothing of William Somer challenges traditional notions that disabled people like William were clothed in motley or the parti-colours of their stage counterparts. As we can see from the records, court fools were instead clothed in luxurious fabrics such as silks, velvets and furs, showing that natural fools were honoured, yet nevertheless considered demonstrably inferior to courtiers in terms of their fashionableness, because they were frequently clothed in outdated styles to denote difference. By analysing household and wardrobe accounts from the court, we can examine the significance of a natural fool’s clothing at the court, and the implications clothing had on a disabled person’s status."
From the introduction to the article:
"Challenging traditional notions that court fools were clothed in motley or the parti-colours of their stage counterparts, it is argued that court fools were instead clothed in luxurious fabrics such as silks and furs. Despite the relative luxury of the materials used, fools were nevertheless demonstrably inferior to other courtiers in terms of their fashionableness, frequently clothed in outdated or unfashionable styles to denote difference and encourage mocking. By analysing household and wardrobe accounts from the court, Screti examines the significance of fools’ clothing at the court and the implications clothing had on the fool’s status."
The introduction is riddled with text not written by the author, but just one example is:
“Fools perceived lack of astuteness, their directness and their sense of humour became valued as an asset, which weaved its honesty into the fabric of court life. As Erasmus deliberated, fools were believed to be closer to God and closer to the truth than other people; the ‘natural fools' occupied a unique and valued position”
Taken from Suzannah Lipscomb's article
https://historicengland.org.uk/resear...
"Their perceived lack of guile, their directness and their humour were valued as assets and woven into the fabric of court life. Believed to be closer to God and closer to the truth than other people, the 'natural fools' occupied a unique and valued position."
I do not believe for a moment that this author, who calls herself a 'historian' who has a masters and is rather worringly starting a PhD (!) does not know any better. The publishers should know better too and I wonder if all their books have these issues.
Connolly, p 207: “There has always been a reluctance to include disability history and the natural fool in the broader histories, which is shocking since the Tudor period witnessed a zenith of foolery and disabled people who made the Tudor court their home.”
Taken from this article written by Zoe Screti:
http://www.midlandshistoricalreview.c...
"This reluctance to include the fool in broader histories is surprising, since not only did the Tudor period witness the zenith of court foolery, but there exists, as shall be seen, a wealth of sources relating to the fools who made the Tudor court their home."
Then:
Connolly, p 206:
"The changing clothing of William Somer challenges traditional notions that disabled people like William were clothed in motley or the parti-colours of their stage counterparts. As we can see from the records, court fools were instead clothed in luxurious fabrics such as silks, velvets and furs, showing that natural fools were honoured, yet nevertheless considered demonstrably inferior to courtiers in terms of their fashionableness, because they were frequently clothed in outdated styles to denote difference. By analysing household and wardrobe accounts from the court, we can examine the significance of a natural fool’s clothing at the court, and the implications clothing had on a disabled person’s status."
From the introduction to the article:
"Challenging traditional notions that court fools were clothed in motley or the parti-colours of their stage counterparts, it is argued that court fools were instead clothed in luxurious fabrics such as silks and furs. Despite the relative luxury of the materials used, fools were nevertheless demonstrably inferior to other courtiers in terms of their fashionableness, frequently clothed in outdated or unfashionable styles to denote difference and encourage mocking. By analysing household and wardrobe accounts from the court, Screti examines the significance of fools’ clothing at the court and the implications clothing had on the fool’s status."
The introduction is riddled with text not written by the author, but just one example is:
“Fools perceived lack of astuteness, their directness and their sense of humour became valued as an asset, which weaved its honesty into the fabric of court life. As Erasmus deliberated, fools were believed to be closer to God and closer to the truth than other people; the ‘natural fools' occupied a unique and valued position”
Taken from Suzannah Lipscomb's article
https://historicengland.org.uk/resear...
"Their perceived lack of guile, their directness and their humour were valued as assets and woven into the fabric of court life. Believed to be closer to God and closer to the truth than other people, the 'natural fools' occupied a unique and valued position."
I do not believe for a moment that this author, who calls herself a 'historian' who has a masters and is rather worringly starting a PhD (!) does not know any better. The publishers should know better too and I wonder if all their books have these issues.
November 22, 2021
From the very first page this is one of the most rambling, disjointed and disorganized works I have read in a long time. This was almost a DNF but I ploughed on so I could write this properly. I can't go page by page as this would go on forever, but even in the intro the author first gives us a repetitive argument as to why she is writing it, mentions disabled people in the Tudor period, then throws in Richard III randomly at the end. Cue lots of little weird points throughout which suggest the author isn't that well read when it comes to serious Tudor history. There is no central structure which pushes the book forward it's just leaping from idea to idea then circling back, throwing in well known Tudors casually and then after mentioning them at least twice explains who they are. She mentions over and over the terminology used to define disabled people and reminds us over and over why she's using them. We get it. In fact the introduction is just the same lines over and over. It doesn't get any better and by the time I finished I was quite angry, because this should have been a groundbreaking book on really important subject matters that haven't had much attention, and instead we have this unedited, confused and shoddy attempt.
August 15, 2022
I'm so incredibly disappointed in the book. Connolley's flagrant plagiarism is detailed in other reviews extensively, so I won't add to them. I feel the book could have benefited from more time to research the necessary sources (rather than plagiarise other articles) and a longer still to formulate a coherent argument. I'm also not certain this book has been peer-reviewed (or it wouldn't have been published), and some of the arguments made by the author seem a little dubious. It's really just all over the place. Places repeat themselves, and most of the book reads like padding.
It's a shame because this is a necessary area of study. This is a real missed opportunity to contribute something meaningful to the scholarship.
It's a shame because this is a necessary area of study. This is a real missed opportunity to contribute something meaningful to the scholarship.
January 13, 2022
This is certainly something new in Tudor history. There has been a spurt of 'new' history books, for instance looking at black Tudors and disability. It's worth reading about to get a more rounded knowledge of the period and context of it.
This book has chapters on all sorts of things from disability at court including court fools, disability in the common people, effects on fertility, depictions in portraits, etc. I found it a thoroughly interesting read. Some sections I found quite hard going, perhaps the sections I found more technical to read.
But it offers a lot to history and is well-written and researched, looking not only at the disabilities that might have been suffered and how they were perceived then, but also how perceptions and even naming of disabilities has changed.
It's certainly not perfect, but it offers something new to sink our teeth into and expansion of knowledge is never a bad thing. You can tell that the author has experience personally with disability in the sympathetic way she tackles the subject and in perceptions of those with a disability.
This book has chapters on all sorts of things from disability at court including court fools, disability in the common people, effects on fertility, depictions in portraits, etc. I found it a thoroughly interesting read. Some sections I found quite hard going, perhaps the sections I found more technical to read.
But it offers a lot to history and is well-written and researched, looking not only at the disabilities that might have been suffered and how they were perceived then, but also how perceptions and even naming of disabilities has changed.
It's certainly not perfect, but it offers something new to sink our teeth into and expansion of knowledge is never a bad thing. You can tell that the author has experience personally with disability in the sympathetic way she tackles the subject and in perceptions of those with a disability.
November 23, 2021
I seemed to spend the entire of my childhood learning about The Tudors. My school taught me about the wars, the marriages, the Mary Rose, and all sorts of things. But, it turns out, they missed out a hell of a lot. Much like Miranda Kaufmann's "Black Tudors: The Untold Story" - this book uncovers some incredible details about hidden history. In this case, the author takes us through the Tudors' ideas of, and attitudes to, disability.
You can look at history through any lens. Intersectionality teaches us how various groups have intertwined (and sometimes disharmonious) needs. Both physical and mental disability can mark a person as an outsider - in the same way that race, or class, gender, or religion determines your status in society. Understanding how the UK's culture has evolved gives us a way to view our modern society.
Indeed, the arguments about the welfare state and "undeserving" poor which dominated Tudor society still continue to this day. History doesn't repeat - but it sure does rhyme!
Due to the lack of documentation outside of high society, the book is dominated by the royal family. It is interesting to hear about how Henry Ⅷ needed a wheelchair towards the end of his life - and even had an early stairlift installed in Hampton Court! - it does provide a somewhat limited view. Is infertility a disability? Perhaps if you are a monarch and are expected to provide an heir, it is. But it doesn't tell us much about the lives of "ordinary" people maimed in war, or forced to survive in a world which wasn't built for them. That said, there's an interesting discussion around Shakespeare and the social model of disability.
From a professional perspective, there was a fascinating look at the Elizabethan data collection exercises to count the poor. The book co-mingles the idea of poverty and disability. Again, due to lack of documentation, attitudes to poverty is probably a reasonable lens through which to view the lives of disabled Tudors.
There are a few non-nobles we get to meet - Will Somer and Jayne Fool - their closeness to the Royal Court means that details of their lives are well-evidenced. We get an amazing glimpse into social attitudes around them. Far from being seen as a burden - they were valued members of the household.
The book is a good general overview of a rarely-explored slice of history. But, sadly, it isn't without its flaws. It really would have benefited from illustrations. We get lots of descriptions of paintings - but you need to head to Wikipedia if you want to examine them yourself. The structure is also somewhat confusing - it jumps back-and-forth between Kings and Queens - so you'll need a solid grasp of history to keep it all straight.
Because of the way it bounces betweens themes, it is a little bit repetitious. There are lots of reused quotes - sometimes within the same chapter. So it ends up feeling a little bit scattershot.
That said, it really brought home to me just how poorly history is taught in this country. I had no idea that dissolution of monasteries had such a calamitous effect on the lives of disabled people living there. Nor that "natural fools" (to use the historic parlance) were held in such high esteem. Incidentally, the book uses contemporary language throughout - which can come as a bit of a shock in these somewhat more enlightened times.
It is a worthwhile - and worthy - book. Perfect for anyone who thinks the commonly-taught, rose-tinted view of Tudor society tells the whole story.
You can look at history through any lens. Intersectionality teaches us how various groups have intertwined (and sometimes disharmonious) needs. Both physical and mental disability can mark a person as an outsider - in the same way that race, or class, gender, or religion determines your status in society. Understanding how the UK's culture has evolved gives us a way to view our modern society.
Indeed, the arguments about the welfare state and "undeserving" poor which dominated Tudor society still continue to this day. History doesn't repeat - but it sure does rhyme!
Due to the lack of documentation outside of high society, the book is dominated by the royal family. It is interesting to hear about how Henry Ⅷ needed a wheelchair towards the end of his life - and even had an early stairlift installed in Hampton Court! - it does provide a somewhat limited view. Is infertility a disability? Perhaps if you are a monarch and are expected to provide an heir, it is. But it doesn't tell us much about the lives of "ordinary" people maimed in war, or forced to survive in a world which wasn't built for them. That said, there's an interesting discussion around Shakespeare and the social model of disability.
From a professional perspective, there was a fascinating look at the Elizabethan data collection exercises to count the poor. The book co-mingles the idea of poverty and disability. Again, due to lack of documentation, attitudes to poverty is probably a reasonable lens through which to view the lives of disabled Tudors.
There are a few non-nobles we get to meet - Will Somer and Jayne Fool - their closeness to the Royal Court means that details of their lives are well-evidenced. We get an amazing glimpse into social attitudes around them. Far from being seen as a burden - they were valued members of the household.
The book is a good general overview of a rarely-explored slice of history. But, sadly, it isn't without its flaws. It really would have benefited from illustrations. We get lots of descriptions of paintings - but you need to head to Wikipedia if you want to examine them yourself. The structure is also somewhat confusing - it jumps back-and-forth between Kings and Queens - so you'll need a solid grasp of history to keep it all straight.
Because of the way it bounces betweens themes, it is a little bit repetitious. There are lots of reused quotes - sometimes within the same chapter. So it ends up feeling a little bit scattershot.
That said, it really brought home to me just how poorly history is taught in this country. I had no idea that dissolution of monasteries had such a calamitous effect on the lives of disabled people living there. Nor that "natural fools" (to use the historic parlance) were held in such high esteem. Incidentally, the book uses contemporary language throughout - which can come as a bit of a shock in these somewhat more enlightened times.
It is a worthwhile - and worthy - book. Perfect for anyone who thinks the commonly-taught, rose-tinted view of Tudor society tells the whole story.
January 24, 2024
You can gain a lot of insight when researching a period in time through the way society treated those most in need. Very little is known about those who suffered from infirmities or disability because they were often seen as invisible, a nuisance to the community.
Philippa Vincent-Connolly's intention to bring those left behind in the history books back out to the forefront is a truly admirable task, but in this case, for me, I found it fell very far from the mark.
Vincent-Connolly plunges headfirst into the topic at hand, but tries to cover too much at once. The reader is introduced to court fools, genetics and disability within aristocratic lines, fertility and childbirth, The Poor Laws and so much more that it became overwhelming. While some areas were thought-provoking and interesting viewing through the lens of the Tudor Era (with the successful introduction of highly fascinating figures such as William Somer, fool to King Henry VIII), a more concentrated study of the subject perhaps would have been the better choice.
Despite taking on so much to cover within her book, I found the author's writing to be repetitive, lacking a flow which unfortunately made the narrative more of a chore than a pleasure to read.
Disability is an area that is in need of deep research within history and this book had so much promise, however this was not the book for me.
▪️▪️▪️
Thank you to the publishers for sending me a copy to review.
Philippa Vincent-Connolly's intention to bring those left behind in the history books back out to the forefront is a truly admirable task, but in this case, for me, I found it fell very far from the mark.
Vincent-Connolly plunges headfirst into the topic at hand, but tries to cover too much at once. The reader is introduced to court fools, genetics and disability within aristocratic lines, fertility and childbirth, The Poor Laws and so much more that it became overwhelming. While some areas were thought-provoking and interesting viewing through the lens of the Tudor Era (with the successful introduction of highly fascinating figures such as William Somer, fool to King Henry VIII), a more concentrated study of the subject perhaps would have been the better choice.
Despite taking on so much to cover within her book, I found the author's writing to be repetitive, lacking a flow which unfortunately made the narrative more of a chore than a pleasure to read.
Disability is an area that is in need of deep research within history and this book had so much promise, however this was not the book for me.
▪️▪️▪️
Thank you to the publishers for sending me a copy to review.
August 30, 2023
I am gutted to be writing this review. I watched the author give a talk about this topic online, during a lock down. She definitely knows her stuff. The topic is so interesting and close to my heart, that I was so excited to read the book and hoped to produce a blog post about it soon.
Many of the issues I have with this book could have been solved with proper editing. The publisher really let it down. There are numerous typos and repetitions, and even a miss placed '?' in the middle of the sentence next to a strange word choice, suggesting an edit that was never rectified. The writing style is rambling and sometimes goes off on tangents that I struggled to follow. Sections read like they had been copied and pasted in, without proof reading. The writing style and its repetition made it quite a slog to read.
The author also made some odd choices. Such as devoting several pages to Anne Boleyn's possible neck lump and extra 6th finger, the evidence of which seem sketchy at best to me. They then cover in less than two paragraphs, Robert Cecil, Elizabeth I's councillor who she literally called 'Pygmy'.
Furthermore, other reviewers have argued there are problems with plagiarism and citations. Whilst I do not know the literature well enough to comment directly (though best believe I am going to be researching this further), I did note that some of the citations were from talks given, which is less than ideal.
In short, I am gutted and I think the publishers in particular should be ashamed of themselves for allowing something that basically is unfinished to be published. The topic has so much potential and the book in its current form is a dis-service to it.
Many of the issues I have with this book could have been solved with proper editing. The publisher really let it down. There are numerous typos and repetitions, and even a miss placed '?' in the middle of the sentence next to a strange word choice, suggesting an edit that was never rectified. The writing style is rambling and sometimes goes off on tangents that I struggled to follow. Sections read like they had been copied and pasted in, without proof reading. The writing style and its repetition made it quite a slog to read.
The author also made some odd choices. Such as devoting several pages to Anne Boleyn's possible neck lump and extra 6th finger, the evidence of which seem sketchy at best to me. They then cover in less than two paragraphs, Robert Cecil, Elizabeth I's councillor who she literally called 'Pygmy'.
Furthermore, other reviewers have argued there are problems with plagiarism and citations. Whilst I do not know the literature well enough to comment directly (though best believe I am going to be researching this further), I did note that some of the citations were from talks given, which is less than ideal.
In short, I am gutted and I think the publishers in particular should be ashamed of themselves for allowing something that basically is unfinished to be published. The topic has so much potential and the book in its current form is a dis-service to it.
January 17, 2022
I never usually bother with reviews but this book was so bad on so many levels I almost threw it at the wall. The writing was poor, paragraphs repeated over and over again but that might have been forgivable if not for one major issue: this is not the author's work. When I contacted Pen and Sword to point out all the plagiarism ie INTELLECTUAL THEFT the publishers brushed it off as no big deal and said proper citations would be added. No. This isn't a case of some sentences which weren't footnoted correctly, this is an instance of an author who has an MA and is doing a PhD deliberately stealing ideas, research, arguments etc and passing them off as her own. And stealing words page after page which you can google very quickly. To the point that you cannot really know where the author's research ends and the research of others begins. Shame on the publishers for their glib response to serious concerns, and shame on the author who clearly knows better. What a disgrace.
December 15, 2021
Edit: After reading accusations of plagiarism that seem legitimate, switching rating to 1 star.
This was a super interesting read filled with tons of things I couldn't have expected about disability during Tudor times. The writing is super engaging (I finished this book in one day) and well-researched—the bibliography and end notes take up almost a quarter of the book. However, the structure was a little all over the place, with lots of repetition and big blocks of text. I was able to look past that, but it really did put a blemish on this otherwise awesome book. ARC provided by NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.
This was a super interesting read filled with tons of things I couldn't have expected about disability during Tudor times. The writing is super engaging (I finished this book in one day) and well-researched—the bibliography and end notes take up almost a quarter of the book. However, the structure was a little all over the place, with lots of repetition and big blocks of text. I was able to look past that, but it really did put a blemish on this otherwise awesome book. ARC provided by NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.
March 29, 2022
Vincent Connolly has written a book that is muddled, repetitive, high school essayish and padded out. Then there's the plagiarism, so this book is a thinly disguised version of other people's hard research and time, condensed into a basic and barely coherent line of argument. Connolly seems to want a Nobel Prize for her presentation of other's work as her own, and is actively demanding some role model recognition for this "work" I feel for the real scholars out there who truly care about disability history and have put in the hours, these are the voices that deserve to be heard, and this should never have been printed legally.
November 23, 2021
An extremely well-researched book.
Little has changed from the Tudor era till today in that the disabled are labelled and then either cared for or
marginalised.. There is inclusion both at court and in the village to a certain degree..
How does wider society respond ? The special Tudor laws are eye-openers for both people in high places and
the ordinary person as all is mixed up with religion, and superstition
This book draws awareness to disability which is part of life. It is both thought-provoking and informative,
Little has changed from the Tudor era till today in that the disabled are labelled and then either cared for or
marginalised.. There is inclusion both at court and in the village to a certain degree..
How does wider society respond ? The special Tudor laws are eye-openers for both people in high places and
the ordinary person as all is mixed up with religion, and superstition
This book draws awareness to disability which is part of life. It is both thought-provoking and informative,
July 2, 2022
Even beyond the shameful and unapologetic plagiarism, which saw true historians like Tracy Borman pull out of her BL talk, Connolly has no aptitude for history or research. This is a woman who wants a PhD for the title, to be elected for disability awards so she can attend a dinner, and has absolutely no interest in putting in the hard work. That's why this book is at the level it is and why she will always be at the level she is. Support real disability historians.
November 29, 2021
Wanted to like it and would have except the story was very short, more of an article really rather than a book, with a lot of padding and repetition. The author needs to understand the difference between plagiarism and citations which makes it a bit of an awkward book to have on shelves. Do not have high hopes for this author.
January 11, 2022
This book is not the author's work. I worry for this author as you cannot just plagiarise other people's works and hope no one will notice. How did Pen and Sword not put the text through a program before publishing? Very disappointed in both author and publisher.
November 18, 2021
I want to thank Netgalley and the author for gifting me the ebook. This was a fascinating book! I highly recommend it. I love everything to do with the Tudor era.
January 26, 2022
It's a plagiarized book. The research, the arguments, the ideas. This shouldn't even be published and it's embarrassing.
January 7, 2023
If Pen and Sword had any dignity they would remove this steaming pile of plagiarised mess before they got sued.
November 22, 2021
When it comes to studies into the Tudor dynasty, many different approaches have been taken in the past. We have examined every monarch, their spouses, how they lived, what they wore, and the various political events that defined the dynasty. The list is endless to the different studies that have been done with the Tudors, yet there are still new areas of study that are being explored. One of those areas of study is how individuals with disabilities survived in the past. How did society treat those who had disabilities, and what rights did they have according to the laws of the land? In her first non-fiction book, “Disability and the Tudors: All the King’s Fools,” Philippa Vincent-Connolly explores the lives of famous fools and monarchs with disabilities to discover how they were treated by Tudor society.
I want to thank Pen and Sword Books and Net Galley for sending me a copy of this book. When I heard about this book, I was interested in learning more, and I will admit that studies on those who had disabilities in the past have never been an area of research that I considered before. I wanted to learn more and see if Vincent-Connolly could provide new information about the Tudors.
To understand disabilities during the Tudor dynasty, Vincent-Connolly defines a few terms, such as a natural fool, those with disabilities, and an artificial fool, which we consider clowns or jesters. They were either viewed as vile sinners or holy innocents, more divine than the average citizen. Like William Somers and Jayne Foole, natural fools were deemed prominent members of the Tudor court and allowed to speak freely to the monarch ruling at the time. Those who lived at court were well taken care of and were depicted in portraits as background figures. Of course, disabilities also affected royalty and the nobility, like Henry VIII, Claude of France, and Lady Mary Grey. For those who did not have the luxury of living at court, some Poor Laws and communities were dedicated to caring for natural fools. With the dissolution of the monasteries, the care for those with disabilities shifted from the church to the communities and their families.
Vincent-Connolly has a passion for this subject and is genuinely dedicated to sharing that passion with fellow Tudor nerds. The one major problem that I had with this book was its repetitive nature, and if it were organized better, this repetitive problem would not be as bad, which would be an easier read. She included one source that I disagreed with, but it was a minor issue in the grand scheme of things.
Overall, I found this book informative and fascinating. The lives of Tudors who had disabilities mattered, and it was an intriguing book that added a new aspect to Tudor research. I think this will open a discussion about those who had disabilities in the past and give us a better appreciation of their struggles and how they survived. If you want to learn something new about this dynasty, I suggest you check out “Disability and the Tudors: All the King’s Fools” by Phillipa Vincent-Connolly.
I want to thank Pen and Sword Books and Net Galley for sending me a copy of this book. When I heard about this book, I was interested in learning more, and I will admit that studies on those who had disabilities in the past have never been an area of research that I considered before. I wanted to learn more and see if Vincent-Connolly could provide new information about the Tudors.
To understand disabilities during the Tudor dynasty, Vincent-Connolly defines a few terms, such as a natural fool, those with disabilities, and an artificial fool, which we consider clowns or jesters. They were either viewed as vile sinners or holy innocents, more divine than the average citizen. Like William Somers and Jayne Foole, natural fools were deemed prominent members of the Tudor court and allowed to speak freely to the monarch ruling at the time. Those who lived at court were well taken care of and were depicted in portraits as background figures. Of course, disabilities also affected royalty and the nobility, like Henry VIII, Claude of France, and Lady Mary Grey. For those who did not have the luxury of living at court, some Poor Laws and communities were dedicated to caring for natural fools. With the dissolution of the monasteries, the care for those with disabilities shifted from the church to the communities and their families.
Vincent-Connolly has a passion for this subject and is genuinely dedicated to sharing that passion with fellow Tudor nerds. The one major problem that I had with this book was its repetitive nature, and if it were organized better, this repetitive problem would not be as bad, which would be an easier read. She included one source that I disagreed with, but it was a minor issue in the grand scheme of things.
Overall, I found this book informative and fascinating. The lives of Tudors who had disabilities mattered, and it was an intriguing book that added a new aspect to Tudor research. I think this will open a discussion about those who had disabilities in the past and give us a better appreciation of their struggles and how they survived. If you want to learn something new about this dynasty, I suggest you check out “Disability and the Tudors: All the King’s Fools” by Phillipa Vincent-Connolly.
November 22, 2021
We often think of Tudors as being barbaric and backwards but this revelatory book describes how many of those who were disabled in the time of Henry VIII were treated like family amongst royalty and less stigmatized than they are now. We have a lot to learn from the past! As the author says, how people treated others is a reflection on the society at the time. Values change. She also discusses legislation, definition of "disability", the difference between "natural fools" (naturally disabled, injured in accidents and war, leprosy, amputations, infertility) "artificial fools" (as in Shakespeare's plays) and jesters (who were mocked). The terminology is incredibly useful and there is a helpful glossary at the back. The author's notes are fascinating!
Examples of "natural fools" are explained and the most discussed are Jayne Foole and William Somer. King Henry VIII's most trusted companion was William who could pull anyone out of melancholy slumps with innocent honesty and laughter, considered the best medicine. Clothing revealed much about status and William and Jayne wore the best fabrics using the best threads. To read about their treatment is touching. I really like the thought of the "Holy Innocents" who were thought to be protected by God. The disabled were highly visible unlike being treated cruelly in the Victorian era.
Laws and provisions were in place as most "natural fools" could not work but this was often dependent on food supply and prices. People were superstitious and relied on healers. Not only were there disabilities as listed above but those resulting from dental problems and syphilis. Wheelchairs and lifts were used at this time. Beekeeping was in vogue. Richard III and Lady Mary Grey were considered to be disabled as they had spinal deformities. But there is so much more to read about, too.
Anyone wishing to learn more about the differences between how those with disabilities were treated then and now ought to read this outstanding book. My only complaint is that it seems written in a disjointed manner at times with some repetition.
My sincere thank you to Pen & Sword and NetGalley for the privilege of reading this riveting book on an important topic, one seldom explored in writing.
Examples of "natural fools" are explained and the most discussed are Jayne Foole and William Somer. King Henry VIII's most trusted companion was William who could pull anyone out of melancholy slumps with innocent honesty and laughter, considered the best medicine. Clothing revealed much about status and William and Jayne wore the best fabrics using the best threads. To read about their treatment is touching. I really like the thought of the "Holy Innocents" who were thought to be protected by God. The disabled were highly visible unlike being treated cruelly in the Victorian era.
Laws and provisions were in place as most "natural fools" could not work but this was often dependent on food supply and prices. People were superstitious and relied on healers. Not only were there disabilities as listed above but those resulting from dental problems and syphilis. Wheelchairs and lifts were used at this time. Beekeeping was in vogue. Richard III and Lady Mary Grey were considered to be disabled as they had spinal deformities. But there is so much more to read about, too.
Anyone wishing to learn more about the differences between how those with disabilities were treated then and now ought to read this outstanding book. My only complaint is that it seems written in a disjointed manner at times with some repetition.
My sincere thank you to Pen & Sword and NetGalley for the privilege of reading this riveting book on an important topic, one seldom explored in writing.
January 25, 2022
Disability and the Tudors: All the King's Fools by Phillipa Vincent Connolly is a nonfiction book. Throughout history, how society treated its disabled and infirm can tell us a great deal about the period. Challenged with any impairment, disease or frailty was often a matter of life and death before the advent of modern medicine, so how did a society support the disabled among them? For centuries, disabled people and their history have been overlooked - hidden in plain sight. Very little on the infirm and mentally ill was written down during the renaissance period. The Tudor period is no exception and presents a complex, unparalleled story. The sixteenth century was far from exemplary in the treatment of its infirm, but a multifaceted and ambiguous story emerges, where society’s ‘natural fools’ were elevated as much as they were belittled.Meet characters like William Somer, Henry VIII’s fool at court, whom the king depended upon, and learn of how the dissolution of the monasteries contributed to forming an army of ‘sturdy beggars’ who roamed Tudor England without charitable support. From the nobility to the lowest of society, Phillipa Vincent-Connolly casts a light on the lives of disabled people in Tudor England and guides us through the social, religious, cultural, and ruling classes’ response to disability as it was then perceived.
Disability and the Tudors is a fascinating look at what we know of how disabled individuals were treated in the past, and how society has changed (or not) in that regard. I found the writing style to be engaging and the acknowledgement of how money and power effects everything past and present. I think that readers that enjoy history, and want to learn more about what did not make it into history lessons will find this read interesting. While many of us know large chunks of history have been forgotten (deliberately or not) to highlight the parts that make those in power look good- I often find the information we have to look harder for much more interesting. As a bonus- the author took the time to properly and thoroughly cite sources (with endnotes and all) which seems to be less common in nonfiction books than it should be these days. When this is done correctly it makes me extra happy with a book.
Disability and the Tudors is a fascinating look at what we know of how disabled individuals were treated in the past, and how society has changed (or not) in that regard. I found the writing style to be engaging and the acknowledgement of how money and power effects everything past and present. I think that readers that enjoy history, and want to learn more about what did not make it into history lessons will find this read interesting. While many of us know large chunks of history have been forgotten (deliberately or not) to highlight the parts that make those in power look good- I often find the information we have to look harder for much more interesting. As a bonus- the author took the time to properly and thoroughly cite sources (with endnotes and all) which seems to be less common in nonfiction books than it should be these days. When this is done correctly it makes me extra happy with a book.
March 28, 2022
Historian Vincent-Connolly wants to shine a light on those not perfectly abled, making the undeniable point that those with any physical or mental challenges tend to not be written down in the historical record, and if we want to see the full picture of what happened in the past we need to find and talk about those not previously included.
Unfortunately, she takes on too much here, trying to cover ever possible sort of mental or physical issue, be it genetic, disease based or injury. It is a lot and gives the book a scattered feeling - but at the same time, due, perhaps, to the limited evidence, Vincent-Connolly repeats herself quite often, giving most of the chapters a feeling of padding.
Dieses of royals, genetic conditions of aristocrats, religious hospitals, the Poor Laws, mentally challenged court jesters, witch hunting, the beginnings of nationalized healthcare, medieval medical theory, Renaissance wheelchairs, plagues, the dangers of childbirth, political mudslinging, and more are all here. While the topic is important, a more focused lens here would have probably been better.
Also, Vincent-Connolly compares the English Reformation to Brexit, which I thought both hilarious and highly accurate.
March 13, 2022
This book has taken me way longer than it should have done to read. It's badly edited full of repetition and in some places just plain inaccurate. While some effort seems to have been made to deal with the plagiarism issue noted by early reviewers, by the addition of some attribution it often is clear where the author is quoting and where she is paraphrasing. It honestly read like she'd copied and pasted semi -relevant quotes from various sources into a word doc and then forgotten to go through it to delete repeats or to write the text in her own words.
What are Pen & Sword playing at? Disability history isn't well served with this book and they should have picked up on the most glaring problems immediately.
What are Pen & Sword playing at? Disability history isn't well served with this book and they should have picked up on the most glaring problems immediately.
December 7, 2022
I'm honestly so disappointed with this book I can't put it into words. I've raised the plagiarism issues with the publisher (and I honestly can't understand how they didn't pick it up before print). I spoke with the author while she was planning this book, and I admit I was surprised at how quickly the book was published. Evidently, it's because so much of the content and research is taken from other historians without credit.
This is such a necessary and needed area of study, and it's a shame that this book is so badly written and so often plagiarised. If I could give it less than one star, I would.
This is such a necessary and needed area of study, and it's a shame that this book is so badly written and so often plagiarised. If I could give it less than one star, I would.
November 13, 2021
A very informative, well researched book on disability in the Tudor days. Disability has many forms, the attitude of society and royals towards it also differs according to the social hierarchy, religion in those times. Reviewing laws, society, psychology and religion , the author has written a comprehensive book on the subject. Highly recommended.
Thank you NetGalley for letting me read this book in exchange for an honest review.
Thank you NetGalley for letting me read this book in exchange for an honest review.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 40 reviews