What do you think?
Rate this book
This sun of York;: A biography of Edward IV
The dust jacket has minor chips and closed tears to the extremities and the spine is sunned.
312 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1973
2 people are currently reading
71 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 - 3 of 3 reviews
March 31, 2022
First, let me say that this is not a straightforward bad biography. It indeed provides some useful informations, but it takes a reader really expert of the period to just skim the correct notions from the numerous mistakes, questionable assumptions and baseless opinions the author scattered through the book. Questoniable assumptions and baseless opinions like "Edward was a frivolous young man" or "his mother had no judgement", or "George and Richard didn't like Edward's visit when they were children in London". It's not clear from what Clive drawns her conclusions, and in many case it seems reasonably just the opposite: there's no reason to think Cecily had no judgement. On the contrary, it seems to me that she must have been a clever woman, who supported her husband and then her sons through political and social turmoils. Why George and Richard should not be happy when, deprived temporarily of their parents, their older brother visited them and cared for them, it's quite unclear.
Then we are presented with statements for which Clive possess no sources, like "Clarence was tall and good-looking". Since there are no contemporary descriptions or paintings of Clarence, obviously this is just nonsense. Again, the only contemporary source written when George was but a child seems to point just to the opposite rather than "tall".
But in my opinion, the biggest fault of this book it's its author's partiality. Everything Edward does is right and viewed in a positive way. He is presented as one of the most successful kings of England, which is rather questionable in my opinion. Clive absolves him of everything: George's execution was right and necessary, the French campaign was successful, he married for love, he filled the coffers of state and so on. Maybe is worthy to say also that Edward alienated the whole old nobility, married in secret an unsuitable woman, allowed her rapacious family to do what they wanted, often acted lately or ineffectively, indulged in pleasures that ruined his figure and his health, killed his own brother, resorted to the hated Benevolences to finance his French campaign and then pocketed the French pension with which he was bought. Then, on his deathbed he left a chaos that his younger brother Richard, accustomed to pull his chestnuts from the fire, had to sort out. Not to say that Edward was a nasty person; in fact I'm fond of him, but not to the point of depicting him as the spotless knight.
On the other hand his brothers are depicted rather harshly, especially Richard. So George and Richard are greedy for fighting over their wives' inheritance, but Edward for changing the law to steal the Dukedom of Norfolk from its rightful heirs is being sensible. And Edward arranging his son's wedding with his brother locked up in the Tower is being reasonable. And of course Edward never wanted to put his brother to death, it was the bad commons who petitioned him and so forced him to do it. Richard, Duke of Gloucester, and later Richard III is Clive's favourite target. To make him appear bad she deliberately omits, half-cites, takes out of context, manipulates. So, even if she abundantly uses Thomas More as a reliable source (!), she fails to say that, according to him (and also to the contemporary Mancini, which she also copiously cites) Richard spoke against George's death. But no, Clive makes cleare NO ONE spoke for George. The Scottish Wars? A success, according to the people and Edward himself when he wrote to the Pope, but not for Clive, because Richard can be given any credit. So the part of the letter to the Pope in which Edward celebrates his brother is carefully omitted, and Richard is charged with being tactless as his father and with having boasted about not having shed a drop of civilian blood, when it's clear in Clive's mind that armies never pillage, rape or kill, so really Richard had to do nothing... indeed if he wanted them to destroy he really had to work hard on them, that's why he didn't.
And then there's probably the worst section of the book, the part in which Richard becomes Lord Protector and then King. Clive states bluntly what Richard is in her mind: a wicked uncle. I thought such terminology and curt judgements should belong more to a pub discussion than to an history book; anyway Clive doesn't stop here. She cuts out all (and mind, ALL) of the Woodville's plot to seize the power, just everything like it's nothing. So we are left just with Richard who dares come south, "kidnaps" his nephew and forces poor innocent Elizabeth Woodville in sanctuary. That's all. Then goes on making blatant mistakes like saying that Eleanor Talbot was not Shrewsbury's daughter (which she was), and that was chosen for the precontract invented story just because she had no relations (all of her family, including her sister the Dowager Duchess of Norfolk, was present at Richard's coronation... not to mention she was Anne Neville's first cousin!). She said that the power behind Richard's accession was Lord Howard and that Buckingham was afraid of him, that's why he didn't protest against it. This is so ridiculous that I don't really know how to comment on it. And again baseless assumptions like "Hastings and Anthony were the most popular nobles of the realm" (by the way, why she unprofessionaly insists in calling Anthony Woodville by his given name only?), and that of Richard was "a sinister coronation" and that "familiar faces were missing. Insignificant men filled the gaps.". Obviously, since Richard's coronation was one of the best attended in a long time, Clive sees fit not to tell us who were the familiar faces missing or the insignificant men present. Then, really unproperly, defines Richard's accession as a military coup (of course an election by the Three Estates of the Realm is a military coup, but Edward's and Henry VII's seizure of the throne in battle is not). She wrongly states that Richard, after having condemned the system of Benevolences, again resorted to them, and arbitrarily decides that, while Thomas More is always right, the contemporary Commynes is lying about Bishop Stillington being the one who spoke about the precontract. Not only, More's right in bestowing Elizabeth Lambert on Edward as his mistress, but contemporary evidences of her being Dorset and Hasting's mistress simply don't exist, because she says so. Clive points out that good Henry VII gave Elizabeth Woodville 400 pounds a year, but fails to say that bad Richard gave her a cool 700 pounds. And, needless to say, Elizabeth willingly and gladly immured herself in poverty in a convent. There would be much more to say, but I think this is enough. The last thing, but the one that really angered me, is that Clive doesn't even concede to Richard his well documented - even by his enemies - last bold charge at Bosworth against Tudor. Out of nowhere, the author states he was killed by Oxford army.
Then we are presented with statements for which Clive possess no sources, like "Clarence was tall and good-looking". Since there are no contemporary descriptions or paintings of Clarence, obviously this is just nonsense. Again, the only contemporary source written when George was but a child seems to point just to the opposite rather than "tall".
But in my opinion, the biggest fault of this book it's its author's partiality. Everything Edward does is right and viewed in a positive way. He is presented as one of the most successful kings of England, which is rather questionable in my opinion. Clive absolves him of everything: George's execution was right and necessary, the French campaign was successful, he married for love, he filled the coffers of state and so on. Maybe is worthy to say also that Edward alienated the whole old nobility, married in secret an unsuitable woman, allowed her rapacious family to do what they wanted, often acted lately or ineffectively, indulged in pleasures that ruined his figure and his health, killed his own brother, resorted to the hated Benevolences to finance his French campaign and then pocketed the French pension with which he was bought. Then, on his deathbed he left a chaos that his younger brother Richard, accustomed to pull his chestnuts from the fire, had to sort out. Not to say that Edward was a nasty person; in fact I'm fond of him, but not to the point of depicting him as the spotless knight.
On the other hand his brothers are depicted rather harshly, especially Richard. So George and Richard are greedy for fighting over their wives' inheritance, but Edward for changing the law to steal the Dukedom of Norfolk from its rightful heirs is being sensible. And Edward arranging his son's wedding with his brother locked up in the Tower is being reasonable. And of course Edward never wanted to put his brother to death, it was the bad commons who petitioned him and so forced him to do it. Richard, Duke of Gloucester, and later Richard III is Clive's favourite target. To make him appear bad she deliberately omits, half-cites, takes out of context, manipulates. So, even if she abundantly uses Thomas More as a reliable source (!), she fails to say that, according to him (and also to the contemporary Mancini, which she also copiously cites) Richard spoke against George's death. But no, Clive makes cleare NO ONE spoke for George. The Scottish Wars? A success, according to the people and Edward himself when he wrote to the Pope, but not for Clive, because Richard can be given any credit. So the part of the letter to the Pope in which Edward celebrates his brother is carefully omitted, and Richard is charged with being tactless as his father and with having boasted about not having shed a drop of civilian blood, when it's clear in Clive's mind that armies never pillage, rape or kill, so really Richard had to do nothing... indeed if he wanted them to destroy he really had to work hard on them, that's why he didn't.
And then there's probably the worst section of the book, the part in which Richard becomes Lord Protector and then King. Clive states bluntly what Richard is in her mind: a wicked uncle. I thought such terminology and curt judgements should belong more to a pub discussion than to an history book; anyway Clive doesn't stop here. She cuts out all (and mind, ALL) of the Woodville's plot to seize the power, just everything like it's nothing. So we are left just with Richard who dares come south, "kidnaps" his nephew and forces poor innocent Elizabeth Woodville in sanctuary. That's all. Then goes on making blatant mistakes like saying that Eleanor Talbot was not Shrewsbury's daughter (which she was), and that was chosen for the precontract invented story just because she had no relations (all of her family, including her sister the Dowager Duchess of Norfolk, was present at Richard's coronation... not to mention she was Anne Neville's first cousin!). She said that the power behind Richard's accession was Lord Howard and that Buckingham was afraid of him, that's why he didn't protest against it. This is so ridiculous that I don't really know how to comment on it. And again baseless assumptions like "Hastings and Anthony were the most popular nobles of the realm" (by the way, why she unprofessionaly insists in calling Anthony Woodville by his given name only?), and that of Richard was "a sinister coronation" and that "familiar faces were missing. Insignificant men filled the gaps.". Obviously, since Richard's coronation was one of the best attended in a long time, Clive sees fit not to tell us who were the familiar faces missing or the insignificant men present. Then, really unproperly, defines Richard's accession as a military coup (of course an election by the Three Estates of the Realm is a military coup, but Edward's and Henry VII's seizure of the throne in battle is not). She wrongly states that Richard, after having condemned the system of Benevolences, again resorted to them, and arbitrarily decides that, while Thomas More is always right, the contemporary Commynes is lying about Bishop Stillington being the one who spoke about the precontract. Not only, More's right in bestowing Elizabeth Lambert on Edward as his mistress, but contemporary evidences of her being Dorset and Hasting's mistress simply don't exist, because she says so. Clive points out that good Henry VII gave Elizabeth Woodville 400 pounds a year, but fails to say that bad Richard gave her a cool 700 pounds. And, needless to say, Elizabeth willingly and gladly immured herself in poverty in a convent. There would be much more to say, but I think this is enough. The last thing, but the one that really angered me, is that Clive doesn't even concede to Richard his well documented - even by his enemies - last bold charge at Bosworth against Tudor. Out of nowhere, the author states he was killed by Oxford army.
July 27, 2013
This book is actually quite decent and provides a surprising number of tidbits of information that don't appear elsewhere. I suspect that this book might not stand-up to rigorous academic scrutiny. However, in my opinion, this biography is more than acceptable for anyone who is fascinated by this enigmatic monarch or this period.
Even though Lady Mary Clive first published This Sun of York in 1974, the book and its research hold up today.
Lady Clive does an excellent job of orienting the reader. At the book's beginning, it provides family trees, helpful summaries of key characters, and maps. The prologue gives a simple, interesting introduction to the period right before Edward's rebellion (1400-1459). Included in the prologue is basic information about Edward's father, Richard of York, the major issues,Margaret of Anjou's background, and a few other topics.
The second chapter explains the significance of Calais in the late 1450s. Lady Clive divides the book chronologically, but the chapter name reflects the theme of the period. For example, Chapter 3 is named "Capturing the Crown: 26 June 1460 to 28 June 1461."
Her treatment of the readeption (1469 rebellion) is fair and moderately easy to understand. She touches on Edward's trading activities and his religious life.
Here's a quick summary of her table of contents:
1. Ludlow Castle
2. Calais
3. Capturing the Crown
4. England's neighbors
5. The New King
6. Margaret and Henry VI
7. Edward's Marriage 1464
8. Dangerous Years 1465-1468
9. Open rebellion
10. Fluctuating fortunes 1470
11. Edward's return
12. Edward resumes his reign
13. The invasion of France
14. Peace and Prosperity 1475-1482
15. Edward's Last Years 1480-1482
16. Edward's death 1483
Clive's method is to essentially retrace Edward's steps and as a side-effect she provides numerous unique details. She's also surprisingly succinct given the scope.
For readers looking to get a good holistic view of Edward's reign or pick up tiny details, this is an excellent book. I think it provides more balanced, albeit shallower, coverage than Ross' Edward IV, which tends to treat specific topics in more depth.
I can't compare it on a historiography basis to Ross because it has been a while since I read this book. Likewise, I can't tell you how much she draws from Scofield.
By Jamie Adair
Even though Lady Mary Clive first published This Sun of York in 1974, the book and its research hold up today.
Lady Clive does an excellent job of orienting the reader. At the book's beginning, it provides family trees, helpful summaries of key characters, and maps. The prologue gives a simple, interesting introduction to the period right before Edward's rebellion (1400-1459). Included in the prologue is basic information about Edward's father, Richard of York, the major issues,Margaret of Anjou's background, and a few other topics.
The second chapter explains the significance of Calais in the late 1450s. Lady Clive divides the book chronologically, but the chapter name reflects the theme of the period. For example, Chapter 3 is named "Capturing the Crown: 26 June 1460 to 28 June 1461."
Her treatment of the readeption (1469 rebellion) is fair and moderately easy to understand. She touches on Edward's trading activities and his religious life.
Here's a quick summary of her table of contents:
1. Ludlow Castle
2. Calais
3. Capturing the Crown
4. England's neighbors
5. The New King
6. Margaret and Henry VI
7. Edward's Marriage 1464
8. Dangerous Years 1465-1468
9. Open rebellion
10. Fluctuating fortunes 1470
11. Edward's return
12. Edward resumes his reign
13. The invasion of France
14. Peace and Prosperity 1475-1482
15. Edward's Last Years 1480-1482
16. Edward's death 1483
Clive's method is to essentially retrace Edward's steps and as a side-effect she provides numerous unique details. She's also surprisingly succinct given the scope.
For readers looking to get a good holistic view of Edward's reign or pick up tiny details, this is an excellent book. I think it provides more balanced, albeit shallower, coverage than Ross' Edward IV, which tends to treat specific topics in more depth.
I can't compare it on a historiography basis to Ross because it has been a while since I read this book. Likewise, I can't tell you how much she draws from Scofield.
By Jamie Adair
April 2, 2020
This is an older volume and gives lots of detail about the politics and battles during Edward's reign. It's a bit presumptive and sloppy when dealing with relationships, some later scholarship differs with her conclusions or elaborates on the facts she presents.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews